Sinless children?

[TurtleHare]

Does your particular brand of belief system believe that children are sinless and don't have to have a Savior to get to heaven because they're already going there?

 

[Rens]

I don't think so. I never heard them preach about it other than that small kids can't make the decision to sin yet. What kind of sin could a baby possibly think or commit or a 4 days old in a whomb? But since they didn't go to heaven but Abraham's bosom in the O.T. they need His offer too and they would need it anyway even if a 1 day old in a whomb did not sin, because how else can they get a new body? And they are in heaven and not able to sin anymore, so they did get born again, what is born from God can't sin, I think.

 

[psalms 91]

We are all born with original sin but I do beleive in an age of accountability and before that I believe they are covered. And no I dont know what the age is but I would say it is when a child knows right from wrong

 

[Josiah]

Some Scriptures come to my mind....


Psalm 51:5 "I was sinful at 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 men for all have sinned."

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

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

First John 1:8, "If anyone claims to have no sin, he deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in him."



The "mark" for us to "hit" perfectly, always is....


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."

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."


The word "sin" means "to miss the mark" "to fall short of the mark" So, if miss the mark... fall short.... then we are sinful. Do those under the age of "X" always, perfectly HIT the mark? I don't think so.


To me, it is helpful to think of "sin" as a condition, a "disease" of our heart, our nature, our being. And to think of "sins" as symptoms of that, results of that. Let's say I shoot my noisy neigbor (they tend to have parties until wee hours). The bullet from my gun entering his head is a sin, yup, but it didn't spring from nothing! There was a whole chain of stuff behind that - going all the way back to something sick, twisted, broken in my heart, my soul, my being. Jesus encouraged all to not just look at outward stuff but to the inner self, the heart and root of stuff. Let's say I have a cold (I don't, I very rarely do but run with me here, lol). The DISEASE is the cold..... SYMPTOMS might be coughing, sneezing, runny nose, sore throat. Now, let's say for some reason .... right now.... I'm NOT coughing or sneezing or have a runny nose or sore throat. Do I yet have cold? YES - just no symptoms. And is it the coughing that caused the cold? No, having the cold caused the coughing. Actually, in a way, having no symptoms can be a problem! We can THINK we aren't sick! (I had a great aunt who was diagnosed with cancer - and died THE NEXT DAY; she had this horrible disease but because there were no symptoms until very, very late in the disease - welll.....)


I know nothing about any "age of accountability." I can't find that anywhere in the Bible. I think there MAY, MAY be some distinction in terms of punishment but not in terms of sinfulness. Let's say I shoot that neighbor. But I was drunk at the time. The court MAY decide that my GUILT is less - but that person is still dead, the sin is the same even if the resulting guilt or punishment may not be. I think some confuse these things.



That's my half cent.



- Josiah

 

[tango]

Does your particular brand of belief system believe that children are sinless and don't have to have a Savior to get to heaven because they're already going there?

This is a tricky one.

If we take one argument that we are all born sinful and unless we accept Jesus Christ (by saying the Sinners' Prayer or similar) we go to hell, that essentially condemns the children who die very young. For those who believe life begins in the womb it also condemns the souls of aborted foetuses, and for those who believe life begins at conception it dooms the souls of all the embryos that didn't implant as well as all the children lost through miscarriage or stillbirth.

If we take an alternative argument that we are born without sin then we create a situation where it would be theoretically possible for someone to live a life that was truly sinless, thereby getting into heaven as a result of their own righteousness. Such a person wouldn't need a Savior because they would have earned the right to enter heaven for themselves. (This would cause issues with Eph 2:8-9, Rom 3:23 etc)

Hence I'm minded to think that we are born with a sin nature but until we are specifically aware of the decision we get to make for ourselves whether to do the right thing or the wrong thing we aren't held accountable for our actions. I don't see any value in trying to figure out what age we might have to attain to be considered accountable because it would have to vary based on the individual. Some might be fully aware of right and wrong by the age of 5-6 while others (particularly those with developmental issues) may be physically adult but mentally and emotionally children. Some years ago I knew a lady whose 20-year-old daughter still carried a teddy bear to the shops with her and would throw tantrums like a child - she was physically mature but mentally and emotionally she was no further developed than a 5-year-old. I can't see how a God of love would look at her and hold her to the same standards as a normally developed 20-year-old.

 

[tango]

Let's say I shoot that neighbor. But I was drunk at the time. The court MAY decide that my GUILT is less - but that person is still dead, the sin is the same even if the resulting guilt or punishment may not be. I think some confuse these things.

In this situation I don't think that being drunk is relevant. If you were to be so utterly sick of your neighbor and his loud parties that you took your gun and shot him, that's one situation. But let's say your 5-year-old child found your gun and thought it was a toy gun. So they point it at the wall, shout BANG BANG and pull the trigger. The gun fires a bullet which goes through the wall and kills your neighbor who was walking past minding his own business. Your neighbor is just as dead as if you shot him in frustration but did your child sin?

 

[Josiah]

Hence I'm minded to think that we are born with a sin nature but until we are specifically aware of the decision we get to make for ourselves whether to do the right thing or the wrong thing we aren't held accountable for our actions.

IMO....

Your position seems to ME to be affirming that children ARE sinful (the question of the thread) but aren't held accountable until (only God knows).... While I raised this point too in my post, I can't think of anything in Scripture that affirms that. And I'd ask.... why then do children die if they aren't accountable (why such extreme punishment for sin - if they aren't punished yet since they aren't accountable?). I think the Scriptures in my post suggest rather strongly that children ARE sinful.

But... that BIG one aside (DEATH!), I do note that Scripture itself seem to set different punishments for SIN (all being sin.... just not all SIN punished equally) Actually, there's LOT of (rather boring) OT about DIFFERENT punishments. You may have a point. But IMO, it's still all SIN (and yeah, it ALL results in death). A lot of OPINIONATING there, however, LOL.

I think it's probably best to take the Law in all it's fullness and severity - and note that we are SINNERS, unworthy, standing in constant need of MERCY. Let the Law stand. Probably the best way to handle this. Now, does GOD punish variously? That may well be.... but it's still all sin.


Thanks for your (as usual) thoughtful post, Tango.




- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

In this situation I don't think that being drunk is relevant. If you were to be so utterly sick of your neighbor and his loud parties that you took your gun and shot him, that's one situation. But let's say your 5-year-old child found your gun and thought it was a toy gun. So they point it at the wall, shout BANG BANG and pull the trigger. The gun fires a bullet which goes through the wall and kills your neighbor who was walking past minding his own business. Your neighbor is just as dead as if you shot him in frustration but did your child sin?

Well, the commandment means to respect, defend and promote LIFE. Now, if I or my child thought it was a toy, there was never any intent, yeah - one is dead but is there SIN? Not an easy situation..... in Heaven, this would not happen (do you agree?) so at least the FALLENESS of the world is involved. But I see your point - not all ACTIONS are necessarily, strictly speaking, technically sinful.

But to go back to my "I've got a cold" point, not all coughs are the result of a cold. BUT if we have a cold, we may cough at some point. The disease causes its symptoms - not the other way around. IMO, we are all (including those under the age of X) SINFUL - with that disease. Whether all actions are SYMPTOMS of that.... or even whether we HAVE symptoms (sins) is a bit of a different issue.

I think it's helpful to remember that "sin" = missing the mark, falling short of the mark: perfect, holy, loving like God. IMO, dwelling on SYMPTOMS rather than the "falling short" is misleading and perhaps only complicates and gives us way too much opportunity to think too highly of ourselves (and thus too little of the Savior).

Thanks again for your thoughtful post.



- Josiah

 

[Alithis]

This is a tricky one.

If we take one argument that we are all born sinful and unless we accept Jesus Christ (by saying the Sinners' Prayer or similar) we go to hell, that essentially condemns the children who die very young. For those who believe life begins in the womb it also condemns the souls of aborted foetuses, and for those who believe life begins at conception it dooms the souls of all the embryos that didn't implant as well as all the children lost through miscarriage or stillbirth.

If we take an alternative argument that we are born without sin then we create a situation where it would be theoretically possible for someone to live a life that was truly sinless, thereby getting into heaven as a result of their own righteousness. Such a person wouldn't need a Savior because they would have earned the right to enter heaven for themselves. (This would cause issues with Eph 2:8-9, Rom 3:23 etc)

Hence I'm minded to think that we are born with a sin nature but until we are specifically aware of the decision we get to make for ourselves whether to do the right thing or the wrong thing we aren't held accountable for our actions. I don't see any value in trying to figure out what age we might have to attain to be considered accountable because it would have to vary based on the individual. Some might be fully aware of right and wrong by the age of 5-6 while others (particularly those with developmental issues) may be physically adult but mentally and emotionally children. Some years ago I knew a lady whose 20-year-old daughter still carried a teddy bear to the shops with her and would throw tantrums like a child - she was physically mature but mentally and emotionally she was no further developed than a 5-year-old. I can't see how a God of love would look at her and hold her to the same standards as a normally developed 20-year-old.

We know God is just.
We know he loves the innocent
We know he does not look on the outer appearance but the heart.
In the case of the mentally deficient ..he knows and fully understands the language of the heart.so he knows those whose faith is in him .and he does not ask much of them.

It is so important not to build a doctrine around the exception.

There are things which are not specifically stated in scripture.so we go by what is stated to reach a considered conclusion .

Since he is just
Since he is love
Since he is merciful
Since he knows the beginning from the end
Since he does not lay upon the child the sin of he fathers.
We must conclude he gathers the innocent unto himself.
It is an assumption based upon what we do have written in the scriptures of the nature of God.

We are born in sin.. We are not born sinners.
That is to say we are born with the defect of sin in our blood and with the nature of the flesh which is sinful.so as we grow it becomes inevitable that we will become guilty of doing it ourselves and thus become a sinner. It is why we must..as jesus said ,be born again where he makes us a new creation with a new nature..his own nature thatdoes rightousness by default.such a nature will inevitably do rightousness. If that change is not evident ..then your not born again.

In the realm of opinion on infant death and salvation i recomend the book. The visions of marretta davis.
Who was shown the reciving of the unborn into the care of angels who then took those murdered souls and nutured them to maturity .teaching them of christ and the cross by which and only by which any can be saved and they also were not exempt.but in thier knowledgess state they recieved the Gospel of salvation and entered the joy of the lord.so it was for still born and infants of innocence. But not so for those who became knowledgable of sin..but still did it any way.
Any way its an interesting book for she spent 9 days in glory seeing both vision and heaven.
I dont preach what she says as a doctrine .but i do recomend people give it a read.

 

[Josiah]

We know he loves the innocent

He also loves the WORLD..... His enemies..... He would never save us if He only loved those who don't need saving, who need no mercy, who need no SAVIOR. Salvation, grace, mercy, the Cross, the Blood, the Gospel, the Savior is because we are NOT innocent.


You can THEORIZE that God does not PUNISH all the imperfect, the NOT innocent equally (but then you have the problem of why the punishment for sin - death - seems to occur to children, even babies, even the unborn.... "the punishment FOR SIN is death"). But that theorizing does NOT mean they are innocent or sinless (fully hitting the mark, 24/7) - ONLY that punishment (other than a big one: DEATH) may be dished out variously.

We know he does not look on the outer appearance but the heart.

I agree. So what ACTS may or may not have happened is NOT AT ALL the point. The heart is. Genesis 8:21, "Every inclination of man's heart is evil from childhood."

he knows those whose faith is in him

For them, the GOSPEL applies - mercy, forgiveness, salvation, life. They are not forgiven because there's nothing to forgive (they are innocent) but rather because there IS something to forgive (they are sinful).






- Josiah

 

[tango]

IMO....

Your position seems to ME to be affirming that children ARE sinful (the question of the thread) but aren't held accountable until (only God knows).... While I raised this point too in my post, I can't think of anything in Scripture that affirms that. And I'd ask.... why then do children die if they aren't accountable (why such extreme punishment for sin - if they aren't punished yet since they aren't accountable?). I think the Scriptures in my post suggest rather strongly that children ARE sinful.

This might sound like I'm pulling all sorts of semantic gymnastics but that's really not my intention (honest!).... I think there's a difference between having a sinful nature and actually sinning. For example as a heterosexual man living in a fallen world my nature is to notice attractive women. My nature is to desire them - that's the desire to reproduce that God put in me. Having the desire isn't sinful but dwelling on the thoughts would be sinful (although it would be hard to define exactly where, between the observation "she's pretty" and a relentless "I wonder what she's like in bed" thought, the line between sin and not-sin lies) and acting on them would certainly be sinful. So although it's in my nature to want to do the things God tells me not to do, at any given moment I can decide whether to sin or not sin.

When Paul writes "for all have sinned and fallen short" (Rom 3:23) that raises issues whichever way we want to see things. If children haven't sinned then either Paul was wrong or children don't count in Paul talking about "all". It's conceivable that when Paul talked of "all" he was talking about adults rather than "everybody" in the way we would understand it today. If we push reasoning too far one way we create a situation where someone could theoretically live a totally sinless life and earn a place in heaven on their own merits (in which case Paul is still wrong, given Eph 2:8-9), and if we push it too far the other way then our very existence is sinful (which creates absurd situations in that the only way to prevent our ongoing existence would be to commit suicide).

Going back to my previous post, if the default position is damnation unless one actively accepts the sacrifice of Jesus that seems pretty tough on those who die in infancy. If the default position is salvation then we need to figure out when the default changes to damnation and how we'd know - it would seem unfortunate if someone was just hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ for the first time but died before they could consider it and ended up condemned because they hadn't accepted Christ.

Just to throw another little twist or two into the mix, Jesus clearly said that not everybody who said to him "Lord, lord" would enter the kingdom, and that one line where he said "if you love me obey my commandments" is also rather inconvenient in its own way. It's sad to say that sometimes those who claim the name of Christ are actually less Christ-like than those who don't. If those who don't expressly claim to be Christians live in accordance with what Jesus taught, while those who do claim to be Christians go to church on Sunday and then live the other 166.5 hours of the week as if there were no God, maybe there would be some surprises come Judgment Day. Matt 21:28-31 makes for interesting reading.

But... that BIG one aside (DEATH!), I do note that Scripture itself seem to set different punishments for SIN (all being sin.... just not all SIN punished equally) Actually, there's LOT of (rather boring) OT about DIFFERENT punishments. You may have a point. But IMO, it's still all SIN (and yeah, it ALL results in death). A lot of OPINIONATING there, however, LOL.

In many ways punishments are a different issue. We have the concept of divine justice and secular justice and they don't need to be the same. In the example of the noisy neighbor, if he drives me to despair and I shoot him the law of the land may show me some lenience if my lawyer uses words like "provocation" and "diminished responsibility". As far as God is concerned the fact I was driven by hatred is itself a sin even if I hadn't pulled the trigger at all so I won't get much quarter there, but on the other hand if I truly repent of what I did I am forgiven and as far as God's record goes it's as if I never did it at all. Even so, I'd still have to face the secular consequences of breaking the secular law.


In many ways the argument is academic because, as one who is capable of differentiating right from wrong and still somehow manages to make the wrong choice depressingly frequently, I can't make any claims that "I didn't realise" or "I thought it would be OK" etc. So whatever the situation regarding the stillborn and the remote tribes of the Amazonian rainforest and other hypothetical situations, I have sinned and I need to be forgiven. Even if I could live from today until the day I die without sinning, my past sins mean I need forgiveness.

 

[Lamb]

How many Gospels are there? Are we saved by grace through faith or some other way that goes against what scripture explicitly tells us? Babies and children are saved the same way we are, by grace through faith. God's Word gives us faith. How He gives it to babies? They can receive it while in the womb since it's documented they can hear in there so we know that is a possibility. If God uses other means to give them His Word, eg; baptism, so they have faith we know that it's because God is loving.

 

[Josiah]

Tango,

As usual, a thoughtful post.... and expressed articulately. Thanks.

This might sound like I'm pulling all sorts of semantic gymnastics but that's really not my intention (honest!).... I think there's a difference between having a sinful nature and actually sinning. For example as a heterosexual man living in a fallen world my nature is to notice attractive women. My nature is to desire them - that's the desire to reproduce that God put in me. Having the desire isn't sinful but dwelling on the thoughts would be sinful (although it would be hard to define exactly where, between the observation "she's pretty" and a relentless "I wonder what she's like in bed" thought, the line between sin and not-sin lies) and acting on them would certainly be sinful. So although it's in my nature to want to do the things God tells me not to do, at any given moment I can decide whether to sin or not sin.

I don't like your example (wink, wink).....

BUT my view is similar in theory. As I've expressed at CH (if not in this thread), I think of "sin" as the disease and "sins" as the symptoms. I have a cold.... perhaps I sneeze (the symptom doesn't cause the disease, the disease may cause the symptom). I THINK this distinction is at least hinted at in Scripture. And yes, the disease is in the heart, in the soul.... and yes, it's why we "miss the mark" (sin) illustrated by sins. Make sense? Ain't saying that's DOGMA, however. To use your example (which I'd REALLY not, especially since I'm now married!!!) yeah... I think I "lust" (I'm sinful) but I don't ACT on it (I don't sin). My wife says I can look (briefly!) but not drull. I think God is a LOT tougher than that. Now.... could a case be made that it's BETTER to not ACT on the "lust?" Probably.... but it is what it is. I don't think we two are WAY far apart.....

When Paul writes "for all have sinned and fallen short" (Rom 3:23) that raises issues whichever way we want to see things. If children haven't sinned then either Paul was wrong or children don't count in Paul talking about "all".

I agree. And of course John says that if we claim to be sinless, we lie.

And Paul also says that the punishment FOR SIN is death.... and that ALL die because ALL sin. If no one died before their 18th birthday (or whatever age no one wants to state), I think there would be a theological/exegetical case for children don't sin OR AT LEAST that God doesn't hold them accountable. Of course, to get hyper-technical, "the punishment of sin is death" is not exactly the same as "death is the result of sin" - theoretically, there could be other reasons for death (perhaps stretching things too much).

It's conceivable that when Paul talked of "all" he was talking about adults rather than "everybody" in the way we would understand it today.

See.... what makes ME really uncomfortable is why this minimizing of the Law and accountability? Why do we WANT to make the Law not apply or accountability not apply? Why "pushing" Scripture A LOT to .... theoretically..... make the Law so small as to have no consequence, to make accountability so limited that it can be eliminated? Something's a work there... that seems dangerous to me. Pretty soon we're into how much intent or knowledge is needed for it is to sin? How aware before there's accountability? I don't know - the whole line of thinking seems very dangerous to me. The fundamental point of Christianity is WE need the SAVIOR - and God supplied Him! Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide! Not "some need no Savior - we just can't ever know who that is."

If we push reasoning too far one way we create a situation where someone could theoretically live a totally sinless life and earn a place in heaven on their own merits (in which case Paul is still wrong, given Eph 2:8-9), and if we push it too far the other way then our very existence is sinful (which creates absurd situations in that the only way to prevent our ongoing existence would be to commit suicide).

Two reactions, if I may....


1. Luther said, "the foundation of all sound theology is HUMILITY." As was stressed to me by my theology teacher, "MYSTERY" is the favorite word of Lutheran theologians and among the Early Church Fathers. We are called to be "stewards of the mysteries of God" not to connect dots, explain things away, make everything "fit" to US. One of Luther's biggest issues with the RCC was what I'd call "over thinking." We need to let God have the last word (a kind of Lutheran proverb, lol) If we can't connect the dots, then don't connect the dots. Let Law be Law.... let Gospel be Gospel. All things I heard over and over in my Lutheran Doctrine class.

2. I disagree with your last "conclusion." No, if we can never stop being imperfect, then we have already reason to not forsake and abandon the Savior. The "problem" with the "holiness" crowd is not only the extreme minimizing of Law and Gospel they do, but ultimately it makes Christ, the Cross, the Blood, the Gospel unnecessary (no need for forgiveness if you have nothing to forgive). The Law CONTINUING to convinct me keeps me on my knees..... in HUMILIY..... crying for MERCY...... looking to the Cross rather than to the mirror.

Going back to my previous post, if the default position is damnation unless one actively accepts the sacrifice of Jesus that seems pretty tough on those who die in infancy.

With all DUE respect, that's a different issue. Because ALL the saved are sinners. The Law does not eliminate the Gospel. The issue you're entering.... IMO..... is several OTHER issues:

1) Can God forgive where there is NOT faith or repentance? (I'd point to Jesus' words on the Cross, "Father, forgive THEM" his executioners who did NOT repent and did NOT believe) WE are not even forbidden to forgive those who are not Christians and not repentant - we are not commanded to , but we are allowed to). I"M not sure I have a definitive answer to this question, but it is a DIFFERENT question than whether sin exists (Jesus would not have asked for forgiveness if there was nothing to forgive).

2) Can God give faith to those under the age of "X" without OUR being aware of it? Even to a fetus not yet born (think John the Baptist in the womb of Mary, leaping for joy at the presence of Mary and the Babe). Even if God IS bound to the faith + repentance formula, it is GOD who gives faith. Might He give it to those SINNERS who thus need it (perfect ones don't need faith or forgiveness and can't repent since they have nothing to repent of)? After all, Scripture says that NO ONE can even say "Jesus is Lord" unless GOD supplies that. Again, I ain't declaring dogma here.... but it IS a question and it's not the one of this thread.

If the default position is salvation then we need to figure out when the default changes to damnation and how we'd know - it would seem unfortunate if someone was just hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ for the first time but died before they could consider it and ended up condemned because they hadn't accepted Christ.

See immediately above. 1) No we don't need to figure out anything, lol. 2) What happens to SINNERS is different than who IS a sinner.

I think there is MUCH in soteriology than isn't "understood." A LOT of "dots" never connected. I'm okay with that. God wants us to REPENT (Law) and BELIEVE (Gospel).

Just to throw another little twist or two into the mix, Jesus clearly said that not everybody who said to him "Lord, lord" would enter the kingdom, and that one line where he said "if you love me obey my commandments" is also rather inconvenient in its own way.

It's good to not entwine, entangle, mix, confused Law and Gospel. BOTH are true. BOTH apply all the time. But they are not the same thing. Yes, we are to be His friends.... yes He LOVES His enemies and died for them. Yes, we are to be PERFECT.... yes He promises to forgive us ("77 times 7") when we come with repentance and faith. Law and Gospel are both true, neither deminishes the other. Again, kind of a red flag comes up in the mind as people try to minimize one in light of the other. Let Law be Law - and accomplish it's task. Let Gospel be Gospel - and accomplish it's task (they "meet" at the Cross).

In many ways punishments are a different issue.

I fully agree.

And there MAY be different levels of accountability for sin (maybe....) BUT it's still sin (which is the issue before us here).

And then there's the big "D" one.




Got to run (work pesters). Good discussion! You are making me think - and I appreciate that.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[tango]

How many Gospels are there? Are we saved by grace through faith or some other way that goes against what scripture explicitly tells us? Babies and children are saved the same way we are, by grace through faith. God's Word gives us faith. How He gives it to babies? They can receive it while in the womb since it's documented they can hear in there so we know that is a possibility. If God uses other means to give them His Word, eg; baptism, so they have faith we know that it's because God is loving.

That still raises the question of how you can have faith in a message you never hear, or how you can have faith in something you can't comprehend. It potentially renders salvation as little more than a cosmic roulette game where if you happen to be a stillborn child of a Christian mother you are saved but if you happen to be a stillborn child of a Hindu mother you are condemned. If faith in "something more" is all that is required it leads to interesting questions where universal reconciliation is concerned.

If we are saved by grace through faith, at what point is it possible to have the faith that is required to save? It's hard to see salvation being little more than a roulette game that leaves millions of children with no hope of salvation because they are unlikely to live long enough to get the chance to hear about it, so even the idea that the faith of parents could carry a child through up to a point starts to fall down there. If you were a child born in Ethiopia in the 80s where the chances were pretty high you'd die of starvation before your 5th birthday, and your mother wasn't a Christian, what hope would you have of even having a chance? You wouldn't have been christened, you wouldn't have heard anything about Jesus Christ, and it seems unlikely that a God who truly wants none to perish would condemn such a child for their "lack of faith".

As I said before, from the perspective of an adult it's largely academic but it seems like any theology that talks of something as important as where we spend eternity needs to have some form of answer to the predictable question of the fate of those who die in infancy or earlier. And just to make it more interesting, if we want to preach that life begins at conception and that a foetus therefore has a soul we should probably have an answer to the question of what happens to the soul of the foetus who was aborted because its mother was a cocaine addict who sold her body on the street to fund her habit and who terminated her pregnancy because she saw abortion as little more than the last line of contraception.

We might argue that grace covers people until they have a choice whether to accept the message through faith or not although that still comes back to the question of an age of accountability.

 

[Alithis]

He also loves the WORLD..... His enemies..... He would never save us if He only loved those who don't need saving, who need no mercy, who need no SAVIOR. Salvation, grace, mercy, the Cross, the Blood, the Gospel, the Savior is because we are NOT innocent.


You can THEORIZE that God does not PUNISH all the imperfect, the NOT innocent equally (but then you have the problem of why the punishment for sin - death - seems to occur to children, even babies, even the unborn.... "the punishment FOR SIN is death"). But that theorizing does NOT mean they are innocent or sinless (fully hitting the mark, 24/7) - ONLY that punishment (other than a big one: DEATH) may be dished out variously.







I agree. So what ACTS may or may not have happened is NOT AT ALL the point. The heart is. Genesis 8:21, "Every inclination of man's heart is evil from childhood."






For them, the GOSPEL applies - mercy, forgiveness, salvation, life. They are not forgiven because there's nothing to forgive (they are innocent) but rather because there IS something to forgive (they are sinful).






- Josiah

"loved " not loves .. he afforded the world an act of love to give them a chance to be saved .. he does not love the world ongoing .. he going to burn it up with fiore .

 

[Josiah]

"loved " not loves .. he afforded the world an act of love to give them a chance to be saved .. he does not love the world ongoing .. he going to burn it up with fiore .

Well... as I predicted.... you've not only destroyed the Law but also the Gospel.

 

[psalms 91]

Well... as I predicted.... you've not only destroyed the Law but also the Gospel.

I am curious, how does saying God will burn the earth with fire go against scripture?

 

[Josiah]

I am curious, how does saying God will burn the earth with fire go against scripture?

God doesn't love us..... we're only to be nicer in some single outward performance.... a destruction of Gospel AND Law.

 

[Lamb]

That still raises the question of how you can have faith in a message you never hear, or how you can have faith in something you can't comprehend. It potentially renders salvation as little more than a cosmic roulette game where if you happen to be a stillborn child of a Christian mother you are saved but if you happen to be a stillborn child of a Hindu mother you are condemned. If faith in "something more" is all that is required it leads to interesting questions where universal reconciliation is concerned.

If we are saved by grace through faith, at what point is it possible to have the faith that is required to save? It's hard to see salvation being little more than a roulette game that leaves millions of children with no hope of salvation because they are unlikely to live long enough to get the chance to hear about it, so even the idea that the faith of parents could carry a child through up to a point starts to fall down there. If you were a child born in Ethiopia in the 80s where the chances were pretty high you'd die of starvation before your 5th birthday, and your mother wasn't a Christian, what hope would you have of even having a chance? You wouldn't have been christened, you wouldn't have heard anything about Jesus Christ, and it seems unlikely that a God who truly wants none to perish would condemn such a child for their "lack of faith".

As I said before, from the perspective of an adult it's largely academic but it seems like any theology that talks of something as important as where we spend eternity needs to have some form of answer to the predictable question of the fate of those who die in infancy or earlier. And just to make it more interesting, if we want to preach that life begins at conception and that a foetus therefore has a soul we should probably have an answer to the question of what happens to the soul of the foetus who was aborted because its mother was a cocaine addict who sold her body on the street to fund her habit and who terminated her pregnancy because she saw abortion as little more than the last line of contraception.

We might argue that grace covers people until they have a choice whether to accept the message through faith or not although that still comes back to the question of an age of accountability.

I don't believe in decision theology. I don't believe it's up to us to "accept" God but instead God gives us faith so that we may believe. He gives us faith by His Word and we also know that His Word is efficacious. It is alive and active and does not return to Him empty. So you see, I do not look to anyone to make a decision or try to reason out anything. God's gift of faith can be given to those in the womb as we know that John the Baptist lept in his mother's womb when Mary who was pregnant with Jesus came near. That's faith. How did God's Word reach that baby in the womb? Scripture didn't explicitly explain it to us, nor does it need to. We know God is loving, fair and just. That's the God I worship.

 

[tango]

I don't like your example (wink, wink).....

BUT my view is similar in theory. As I've expressed at CH (if not in this thread), I think of "sin" as the disease and "sins" as the symptoms. I have a cold.... perhaps I sneeze (the symptom doesn't cause the disease, the disease may cause the symptom). I THINK this distinction is at least hinted at in Scripture. And yes, the disease is in the heart, in the soul.... and yes, it's why we "miss the mark" (sin) illustrated by sins. Make sense? Ain't saying that's DOGMA, however. To use your example (which I'd REALLY not, especially since I'm now married!!!) yeah... I think I "lust" (I'm sinful) but I don't ACT on it (I don't sin). My wife says I can look (briefly!) but not drull. I think God is a LOT tougher than that. Now.... could a case be made that it's BETTER to not ACT on the "lust?" Probably.... but it is what it is. I don't think we two are WAY far apart.....

I don't like the example much myself (I'm married too). I use it because it's so easy to focus exclusively on the sins that Other People struggle with, so I figure I might as well help stay on track and use an example I need to keep in mind myself.

In the light of what Jesus said about a man looking on a woman with lust I'd disagree with your assertion that lusting without acting on it is not sinful. Jesus said that a man who looked on a woman with lust had effectively committed adultery with her. That's a bit of an eye-opener - it's hard to see how it can possibly be sinful to notice a beautiful woman but dwell on it for too long and you have already sinned. As far as the sin is concerned you're no better sitting there lusting after her than if you'd got into bed with her. (Matt 5:28 is the verse here)

I agree. And of course John says that if we claim to be sinless, we lie.

And Paul also says that the punishment FOR SIN is death.... and that ALL die because ALL sin. If no one died before their 18th birthday (or whatever age no one wants to state), I think there would be a theological/exegetical case for children don't sin OR AT LEAST that God doesn't hold them accountable. Of course, to get hyper-technical, "the punishment of sin is death" is not exactly the same as "death is the result of sin" - theoretically, there could be other reasons for death (perhaps stretching things too much).

Up to a point we could still quibble over the intended audience of the letters of Paul and John, with a specific consideration to whether they were written to adults about adults, or to adults about everyone including children. To take a simplistic analogy we might transcribe the conversation at a men's health clinic that would say something like "we all need to check ourselves regularly for abnormalities and changes that might indicate early stages of testicular cancer". Take that transcription and hand it to a group of women and it makes no sense, despite clearly saying "we should all check for testicular cancer".

See.... what makes ME really uncomfortable is why this minimizing of the Law and accountability? Why do we WANT to make the Law not apply or accountability not apply? Why "pushing" Scripture A LOT to .... theoretically..... make the Law so small as to have no consequence, to make accountability so limited that it can be eliminated? Something's a work there... that seems dangerous to me. Pretty soon we're into how much intent or knowledge is needed for it is to sin? How aware before there's accountability? I don't know - the whole line of thinking seems very dangerous to me. The fundamental point of Christianity is WE need the SAVIOR - and God supplied Him! Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide! Not "some need no Savior - we just can't ever know who that is."

Trying to strike a balance that doesn't break either the concept of a God of love or the requirement for a Savior is tricky in this situation. As I mentioned early on if the default position is damnation that's a pretty rough ride for the child who is born, rushed to paediatric ICU, lives for three days strapped to machines that beep and then dies only to find himself damned because he never accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior; on the other hand if the default position is salvation then we have to accept the possibility that someone could live a sinless life and earn their own place in heaven. We could argue that Rom 3:23 referring to "all have sinned" means that everyone alive at that point had sinned but that seems like too much semantic gymnastics.

1. Luther said, "the foundation of all sound theology is HUMILITY." As was stressed to me by my theology teacher, "MYSTERY" is the favorite word of Lutheran theologians and among the Early Church Fathers. We are called to be "stewards of the mysteries of God" not to connect dots, explain things away, make everything "fit" to US. One of Luther's biggest issues with the RCC was what I'd call "over thinking." We need to let God have the last word (a kind of Lutheran proverb, lol) If we can't connect the dots, then don't connect the dots. Let Law be Law.... let Gospel be Gospel. All things I heard over and over in my Lutheran Doctrine class.

Humility is a good thing for sure, especially when we don't know the answer

I don't doubt there are times where we have to conclude that we don't know. But in keeping with Prov 25:2 and Prov 20:5, paired with the concept of "love God with all your mind" I can't help thinking that the answer is there if we truly seek it.

2. I disagree with your last "conclusion." No, if we can never stop being imperfect, then we have already reason to not forsake and abandon the Savior. The "problem" with the "holiness" crowd is not only the extreme minimizing of Law and Gospel they do, but ultimately it makes Christ, the Cross, the Blood, the Gospel unnecessary (no need for forgiveness if you have nothing to forgive). The Law CONTINUING to convinct me keeps me on my knees..... in HUMILIY..... crying for MERCY...... looking to the Cross rather than to the mirror.

That was very much a theoretical construct. If, in theory, I could repent of my past sins and then not commit a single sin for the rest of my life, in theory there would be no further need to repent of anything. In practise it's hard to see how I'd go about doing that because the brutal reality is that I'm not always very good at resisting the temptation to do the wrong thing. The reason I look at theoretical situations is because however implausible they may seem it's usually the outlier cases that break ideas.

With all DUE respect, that's a different issue. Because ALL the saved are sinners. The Law does not eliminate the Gospel. The issue you're entering.... IMO..... is several OTHER issues:

1) Can God forgive where there is NOT faith or repentance? (I'd point to Jesus' words on the Cross, "Father, forgive THEM" his executioners who did NOT repent and did NOT believe) WE are not even forbidden to forgive those who are not Christians and not repentant - we are not commanded to , but we are allowed to). I"M not sure I have a definitive answer to this question, but it is a DIFFERENT question than whether sin exists (Jesus would not have asked for forgiveness if there was nothing to forgive).

2) Can God give faith to those under the age of "X" without OUR being aware of it? Even to a fetus not yet born (think John the Baptist in the womb of Mary, leaping for joy at the presence of Mary and the Babe). Even if God IS bound to the faith + repentance formula, it is GOD who gives faith. Might He give it to those SINNERS who thus need it (perfect ones don't need faith or forgiveness and can't repent since they have nothing to repent of)? After all, Scripture says that NO ONE can even say "Jesus is Lord" unless GOD supplies that. Again, I ain't declaring dogma here.... but it IS a question and it's not the one of this thread.

God can forgive whoever he wants to forgive, although the question would then appear to be whether universal reconciliation is an avenue worth exploring. John 3:16 mentions "whosoever believeth in him shall not perish" without explicitly stating what happens to those who don't "believeth in him", Jesus gave the analogy of people who heard the word and accepted it and people who heard the word and rejected it (Matt 7:24-27) and made no mention of people who never heard the word.