I have recently engaged in a conversation online with a friend who believes that paedobaptism removes the guilt of original sin, so the discuss was launched into what if the child dies before Baptism? He argued that God is not held to the rules of the church, and can take that child to Heaven.
So, I submit for you approval my opinion on the state of infants. Feel free to disagree, argue, say what you like, I have probably heard it before anyway.
First, I think we must look at what constitutes “sin”. Are we really guilty for the sin of Adam? In the Old Testament, sin was all based on action. A list of “do”s and “don’t”s. When Jesus came, the law and nature of sin moved from just actions to also attitudes, and motivations. When you boil sin down to it’s bare minimum in scripture, it’s knowing what God’s law says and doing something different. Some know God’s law from the written code, but Romans 1 tells us that there is a natural law that God gives us, and while we know right, we choose wrong. Sin is a verb, and if it’s in thought or deed, we perform the act of sin. So are we born guilty? My buddy would say yes, that the fact that all have sinned, that sin came through one man, Adam, that infants are indeed guilty. I disagree.
My main textual support comes from Paul. In Romans 1, we see the idea of the “natural” law, which is need in nature, as verse 20 states. Chapter 2, verse 15 tells us that the works of the law are written on the hearts of those without the law. The law comes to everyone, either by nature, by God’s revelation, or by the virtue of it’s manifestation by the creator in our hearts. This leads me to Chapter 7 when Paul says “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandments came, sin came alive and I died” vs 9. If there was once a time that Paul was alive, but the law came and sin was awakened and he died. So at what point was he alive? We know that Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the children (Matt 18, Mark 9:37, 10:14 & 15). If the Kingdom belongs to the children, and the sinners will not inherit the Kingdom, what does this tell us about the nature of small children?
In my years of education, I have become very familiar with Erikson’s psychosocial development. In his stages, a preschool-early elementary age child begins to ask the questions of self worth, and from there begin to place value on behavior, either good or bad. According to Erikson, from ages 6 to 12 is when they begin to develop morals and an idea of right and wrong. (Check our the Erikson Wikipedia page).
Piaget developed a theory of cognitive development, and says that children don’t begin to develop abstract thinking until later in life (he states early adolescence, 11+). Sin is a more abstract concept, it goes beyond the concrete operational stage that young children find themselves in. (Check out some of Piaget’s work).
Now I see the value of Erikson’s and Piaget’s work, it’s not scripture, but it’s valid work. If their ideas of development is true, then it’s worth reading, because all truth is God’s truth. Combined with the truth I see in scripture, it seems rational to me that there is a point, just as Paul describes, where children have the nature of the original sin, the knowledge of good and evil, but it has not yet awakened in their heart. At some point a child becomes aware of the abstract principle that some things are good and some things are bad. Until this point, they have conditioning of “right” and “wrong”. For a small child, “right” things make mom and dad happy. When a child does “wrong” the child is punished. They have no concept of the value or nature of the action, just that it has negative consequences. Much like your dog doesn’t understand that leaving presents on the carpet is morally wrong, your dog has been conditioned to know that a bomb on the carpet leads to unhappy owners. Simple conditioning.
At some point we begin to make choices based on what we know to be right and wrong, what God’s law is and we decide to be our boss. This is an abstract concept, and it’s sin and leads to death. At this point, as Paul states, sin is awakened by the law and brings death. The nature of sin has revived the power of sin and that sin brought death. For those who are not to this point (my guess would be kids up until the age of somewhere between 4 and 8. Boys are a little slower than girls). Some kids come to this knowledge at different rates, but when they do, often they begin to have guilt, questions of ethics and begin to talk about the actions of others and are concerned often about others, their actions and motivations.
My daughter wanted to pray to receive Christ at 5. I was hesitant but we prayed and she confessed of being a sinner, confessed some specific sins, asked for forgiveness and asked Jesus to come into her life. My wife and I discussed it as she came out of her room and asked “if I sin tomorrow, will Jesus forgive me”. This demonstrated great abstract thinking, as well as conviction of sin.
As for paedobaptism, my friend believes that it’s necessary to remove the taint of sin. I believe that Baptism is a communal activity, done to identify with Christ in the presence of other believers. I believe this should only be done after a person makes a personal confession of Jesus Christ. Baptism, like a wedding ring, is an outword manifestation of an inward commitment.
If I was going to embrace paedobaptism (which I don’t), my draw would be more of the covenantal component. I am not completely covenantal, I do see the validity of the dedication as recognition that this child is part of the community of faith and will be raised to be part of the community of faith with the hopes that one day the child will place their trust in Christ. This is pretty close to the conevantal paedobaptism, minus the water. I would love to hear what you think your ideas and your theology on the matter.
All children of God created in his image are promised eternal life in God’s world no matter what their sins and I have proven it by the word of God at http://minigoodtale.wordpress.com .
If we abandon the basic rules of hermeneutics, we can make the Bible say almost anything we want. The Bible clearly does not teach universalism. From beginning to end it is clear that the wages of sin is death and there are many people who will choose sin over God, thus resulting in their eternal damnation. As Jesus said, wide is the road that leads to destruction.
Thank you, Brent, for making that call.
A lot of things to say about this, but will settle for two.
Baptism is not like a wedding ring. That’s not an appropriate analogy. It’s like a wedding ceremony. If you want more on this, check out Russell Moore’s sermon called “Dead Man Washing”.
The Romans 7 passage is better taken as Paul identifying himself with Israel. Before the law=before Sinai. I know its a terribly disputed passage, but that’s where Doug Moo comes down on it and it makes the best sense out of that whole context. Paul is identifying himself with corporate Israel and the reference to coveting before (and likely after as well) are one of several reasons to take it that way rather than simply as Paul’s personal spiritual experience. Key also is the fact that through 6, 7, & 8 Paul is picturing sin, law, death, and flesh as reigning powers of the old age, against righteousness, grace, life, and Spirit as powers of the new.
I don’t see the connection in the Romans 7 passage at all to Israel. I don’t wish to debate this, but that seems like a huge stretch to me.
Here is my issue with the “wedding ceremony” analogy. I was not married until the pastor said “I now pronounce you man and wife” but I was a follower of Christ before I was dunked. I was baptized because I believe, not in order to believe. The wedding ring I wear every day to show others I am married. Even though baptism is a one time even, it’s to show the commitment I have already made. I am not making the commitment by being baptized, unlike a wedding ceremony where I am making the vows to become married. I disagree with your analogy, and after reading Romans 7, I don’t see the connection with Israel. The connection with Israel doesn’t start until chapter 9.
RE: baptism & marriage
We’ve separated baptism and conversion in a way the NT does not. It is supposed to be like the wedding ceremony, even if we’ve chosen not to follow Scriptural example.
Just like in many places of the world that face persecution—you can pray all the sinner’s prayers you want. The trouble starts when you go under the water.
So are you saying that we are saved through the act of Baptism?
I agree with you on Baptism, and disagree with you on original sin. We sin because we’re sinners, we are not sinners because we sin. It’s not a chicken-egg thing, it’s a cart-horse thing. Sinfulness leads us to sin. Nobody ever has to teach a child to sin. In fact, most of child rearing centers on trying to teach the child to overcome his sinful tendencies, at least on the outside. 🙂
But, as you say, you’ve heard it all before. *)
Squirrel
I didn’t make the point that we are sinners because we sin, we have the nature of sin at birth, but does God hold us accontable for the sin nature or the act of sin? The question isn’t the origin of sin or the taint of sin. The question is, at what point are we guilty? At what point do we deserve hell?
Dan, can you have original sin without original guilt?
I believe we have the “taint” of original sin, that being the ability to know Good and Evil, since that was the result of eating the fruit. Is God just if I am punished for the sin of another man? I don’t see any support in scripture that says we stand condemned because of Adam’s sin, we have the nature of sin from Adam, which leads us to sin, which then incurs our guilt. If I am guilty for original sin, how was Jesus without sin? That leads us to “sin comes from the man” logic, with is really out there. If we are condemned by Adam’s sin, could we not be justified by Abraham’s faith? Or Noah’s righteousness? Too many inconsistencies, we carry the taint of original sin, and as soon as temptation is presented, that taint leads us to sin, which then brings death.
Dan, is God “just” if another man is punished for your sin? I don’t understand how you can believe it’s cool if God punishes Jesus for your sin, but it’s not cool if God punishes you for Adam’s sin.
This sounds semi-Pelagian. Do you affirm total depravity?
Jesus was the propitiation for sin. I do believe in total depravity, and I am not advocating for the ability to gain’s one salvation, and I am not sure how you got to semi-Pelagianism from this. My point it, the punishment for the sins of Adam doesn’t have scriptural support, in fact Paul says “death spread to all men because all sinned”. It doesn’t say “death spread to all men because Adam sinned”. We don’t have the ability to do go, every part of us is tainted by sin, that’s not the issue. At what point does God send us to hell? If we are condemned for the sins of Adam, then infants who die in the womb go to hell. Apart from Christ, all perish, I see no exceptions in scripture. If you are right, then babies who are aborted go to hell, and that is inconsistent with what Jesus said about little children.
Dan, I believe babies go to heaven because even God cannot give a baby faith (unless he grows their brain supernaturally; which, God can do). They are credited with the righteousness of Christ because of their inability to possess saving faith. Even if God gave them this gift, they could not exercise it. The responsibility to believe thus is taken from them. Even Jesus Christ in His humanity was incapable of believing, possessing saving faith as an infant since He was 100% human.
*For the record Jesus never possessed “saving faith” since He had no need for saving faith due to His sinlessness.
My concern with your statement is the slippery slope it creates Jarod. What about people who never hear the gospel, or those who are isolated and never meet many people? Can God just apply Christ to them, without faith or knowledge? The line of reasoning you propose always opens a pandora’s box. If you are guilty, then you go to hell unless you are redeemed by Christ, there is no way around it. The only way to the Father is Christ. If we are guilty at conception instead of tainted, then babies must go to hell. That is the only scripturally consistent reality.
Dan, it’s not a slipperty slope since it’s only applied to those who are incapable of possessing any form of faith. The adult on the Island that has never heard of Christ, puts his faith in himself or a tree or the sun, etc. A child on the other hand has no faith in anyone or anything since he or she is incapable of possessing faith in any form.
Jared – We do have scriptural warrant for believing that God can regenerate, or at least cause some kind of proper faith, in an infant in utero. John the Baptist, in utero, lept, and not just lept, but lept “for joy” (Luke 1:44) when the also in utero Jesus was near.
This whole topic makes me uneasy only because it is pretty much the same as the “age of accountability” argument just with younger kids.
A few questions that may be off topic but I always want to ask when this comes up – what of the mentally handicapped person who has no understanding of his sin? Is he a sinner? Does he sin? Is he culpable? What light does that cast on my kids when they were tiny (like 6 months) and had no comprehension of sin, yet they were obviously sinning? Do they “get out of jail free?” if they die?
Doesn’t that make it more about the act than the heart?
If I weren’t a “Calvinist”, I may just say “I really want to see my kids in heaven some day. If they die tonight, they’ll go to heaven, but if I wait too long, they’ll become aware of their sin and possibly go to hell.” One second they are 100% heaven bound, the next, nobody knows.
I’ve always wondered how the “all babies who die go to heaven” argument plays out in light of election. I could accept Spurgeon’s view. I cannot accept a view that says babies/children who die go to heaven because they are innocent or because they are children. The former rests in God’s sovereignty. The latter says that salvation is conditioned on faith+age if over X years or age alone if under X years. Whatever X is.
Man, if only I was born with some terrible mental handicap – then I’d go to heaven for sure! 🙂
Sorry for the rambling, but those are my thoughts.
Jeff, as a Calvinist (sorry, Wovenist), I don’t believe an infant dies apart from God’s sovereignty, so it’s a moot point. The baby who is taken early is taken for God’s purpose, for His glory. Job wished he died in utero. Similar to what you are saying.
Wovenist – sweet.
So, you’d be pretty close to Spurgeon’s view then – that if a baby dies in infancy, it proves that he was elect? (I’m pretty sure that was his view) I like that one better than anything that can be remotely construed as supporting an “age of accountability” type thing.
Thanks for the response!
I would say at the moment we’re conceived. In Psalm 51, David is confessing his sin with Bathsheba and says of himself, “I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.” This indicates that David understood himself as being sinful before he was even born.
Paul says in Ephesians 2:3 that “by nature we were children of wrath, like the rest of mankind,” that is before God saved us by grace. Our nature was to be a child of wrath. Paul gives no indication that we start out without such nature but then receive it at a certain age. It is the nature that was ours and is ours up until that time we are born again.
And I think Romans 5 indicates we are guilty both for our own sin but also for the condemnation brought by the head of the human race–Adam. He says in 5:18-19, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men…for as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners…” His point is contrasting the result of Adam’s sin with the righteousness of Christ where we are justified and made righteous. But in that it is clear we incur guilt and condemnation, and are considered sinners because of what Adam did and our nature flowing from him.
Therefore, I think we are clearly guilty and deserve hell from the moment we come into existence.
Now on the flip side, our God is merciful, gracious, and just. And there are passages that indicate judgment will be carried out in fairness and equity–in other words, not everyone will be judged the same but based on their deeds (Matthew 11:20-24, Revelation 20:11-15).
Faith and repentance are necessary for salvation. But with the above in mind, I believe that God will show grace to those who are incapable of faith and repentance and receive them into his kingdom.
So I don’t think it’s a matter of “at what point are we guilty/deserve hell” because I think the Bible is clear–from the moment we exist we are guilty and deserve hell–rather I think its a matter of God being fair, just, and gracious that he will have mercy upon those who are unable to understand and exercise faith.
Am I correct in reading that in your view all infants and imbeciles are among God’s elect?
Would there be some of his colleagues who disagree on this?
Thanks.
I would say that those who die without the capacity to comprehend good and evil, babies, infants and those with profound developmental disabilities, theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Colleagues can disagree, but if Jesus said that the little children inherit the Kingdom, then I believe it.
Mike, that is the same pandora’s box. Who else will God give grace too who are apart from Christ? Why just children, why not those who are uneducated, live in a dark jungle someplace. Jesus should have said “no one come to the Father but by me unless they are unable to have faith, then they are ok”.
It’s not a pandora’s box.
It’s actually covered in Scripture. Romans 1–God’s power and attributes are made known in creation, so that “they are without excuse.”
The display of creation shows enough about God that people should seek him in faith, but they don’t b/c Romans 3: no one seeks for God. Therefore, they instead seek false gods and create idols, thus showing the sinfulness of their nature.
Unlike infants, those who are uneducated and live in dark jungles are capable of exercising faith and repentance, but their sinful nature makes it so they do not, will not, and cannot on their own. Aside from not being able to act in faith and repentance, the infant cannot comprehend the divine attributes of God in creation.
So it is different.
Mike – You are arguing in favor of Dan’s thesis for him: “Aside from not being able to act in faith and repentance, the infant cannot comprehend the divine attributes of God in creation.”
If they cannot comprehend the divine attributes, they cannot understand the law, and are therefore not guilty for sin although they have the capacity to sin and propensity for choosing evil. No scripture supports that children get a special dispensation until “the age of accountability,” it makes more sense logically and scripturally that they do not stand guilty until they can “can comprehend the divine attributes,” including the mental, emotional, and spiritual understanding of the law that brings death.
Except that doesn’t make sense Scripturally. Romans 5 assigns us guilt in our own sin but also inherited guilt (condemnation) in Adam’s sin.
My argument is (and I’m not going to repeat everything and the scriptures, b/c I’ve quoted them above) :
1. We all bear guilt from the moment of our conception b/c the whole human race bears guilt in our adamic sin nature.
2. God is merciful, fair, and just in judgment.
3. Salvation requires faith and repentance.
4. Lack of knowledge about God is not an excuse for anyone not to have faith and repent, for we all have ample knowledge from the witness of creation, but we reject that knowledge due to our sin.
5. Therefore in my opinion on a subject to which the Scripture actually doesn’t directly speak, though they are guilty in their sin and without excuse, God will, out of mercy and consideration of their inability to believe or preceive his attributes in creation, receive infants into his kingdom.
No, the Bible does not assign a special dispensation to them, but it does assign guilt not just via our actions but also our very nature as fallen humans–it is the whole headship of Adam vs. the headship of Christ thing. Infants are guilty in sin. But since the Bible doesn’t tell us what happens to infants when they die, or give us any age of accountability, etc.; and since it does tell us God is fair in judgment, I choose to believe God through the cross will overlook the sin-guilt of those who cannot repent and have faith.
It might not be the most logical option, but God never told us to make sure our faith fits into neat little boxes of human logic…
Except Mike, the position of being punished for Adam’s sin isn’t biblical.
Romans 5:12, “Therefore just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…” = We are guilty because of our own sin.
Romans 5:15, “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” = We are also guilty in Adam’s sin. He is our representative head in whom we stand condemned, just as if by faith we are united to Christ, Jesus becomes our representative and we are found righteous in him.
Romans 5:16 “And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.” = Repeats the idea we are either condemned in Adam for his transgression or justified in Christ for his obedience.
Romans 5:18 “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” = Again, the condemnation of all people is found in one trespass. Not simply a propensity to sin, but actual condemnation.
1 Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” = Again, a direct comparison. Are we in Adam or Christ? Adam’s guilt stands as our guilt, just as Jesus’ life stands as our life.
If we say that we are not under condemnation for Adam’s sin, but only gain a propensity to sin which we will act upon; then we cannot say we are under justification for Jesus’ obedience, but rather he only gave us the propensity to obey. That certainly ain’t right!
Or we can take what Paul is arguing at it’s face value: we are dead and condemned (or “judged”) in Adam, and our own sin adds to it.
You can think of it this way as well: Death is the punishment for sin. We die because of Adam. If what you’re saying is true: we are not guilty under Adam’s sin and babies aren’t under the guilt of sin, then babies wouldn’t die–there’d be zero reason for it given everything the Bible says about sin and death.
Matthew 3:11
“I baptize you with water for repentance.
But after me will come One Who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry.
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit
and with fire.”
Dave,
Great article! This kind of strikes close to home because last summer, one of the best families I’ve ever had the priviledge to pastor lost their 2 1/2 year old little girl in an accidental drowning. I had some of my reformed Baptist friends (I know not all od them believe this) tell me that since the baby didn’t live long enough to believe she wasn’t one of the elect. It incensed me and so I wrote an article on it on my blog. Everyone please pray for the Pender family in my church, they have been an inspiration to their pastor, they still serve the Lord and they have not turned their back on Him. The blog article is at http://powerfulprecepts.blogspot.com/2010/07/damnation-of-infants.html
I think there is room to trust God to work this out. The age of accountability teaching is the rough Baptist equivalent of paedobaptism. It is poorly supported by Scripture in my opinion, but it provides great comfort to parents who might otherwise obsess about the status of their children.
Paedobaptism is equally weakly supported in Scripture. So I can’t see how the once and future trend of lowering the age of child baptism is particularly helpful. For what it’s worth, my mother was saved at five and has quite clear memories of the whole process that have endured her entire life which leads me to feel an early salvation and baptism can be quite memorable and therefore–since it endures into adulthood where the conversion is confirmed via lifestyle choices–seems to me to be a proto-adult decision. (Note for our RC friends: since we consider salvation to be an adult decision that replaces the parents’ decision to baptize the infant near birth, there is no confirmation nor bar/bat mitzvah-style coming of age ceremonies in SBC life. Similarly, of course, baptism itself is an ordinance that Jesus ordained for believers in order to identify publicly with him and Baptists generally believe it has no ritual, sacramental, or salvic import.)
My personal preference as a Southern Baptist is to acknowledge early decisions but to wait as long as age 12 (think Anabaptist) to baptize. But I also was born again at age 8 and baptized a couple of Sundays later by my dad (in a QUITE cold baptistry in March) when my maternal grands could be present. I think being saved that young (or maybe it was growing up in the fishbowl as a pk) made me irascible, but I consider the experience genuwine…unlike the grape juice we serve at the Lord’s Supper…the other Jesus-ordained “ordinance”.
Note that if you take out the “i”, it becomes bombs you throw at each other, but despite its extensive presence in SBC life, Jesus did not ordain “ordnance”.
Dan, you’re arguing that one must know what sin is before their sins are held accountable. The problem is that there are billions that never “know what the sin of rejecting Christ is” since they have not heard of Him. Are they held accountable for rejecting Christ?
Romans 2:12 Jared, “For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law”. Verse 15 “They show that the works of the law is written on their hearts” I have already answered that question in the post.
That is a nonsensical question… I seems that you are very challenged by Dan’s thesis, but don’t let that cause you to become unhinged in your reasoning.
You know very well what Paul wrote in Rom 1:18-19 – “for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, (19) because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.”
How many children do you know suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness? Children lie to avoid getting into trouble, and I believe that is the beginning of understanding right from wrong, but it isn’t quite the same as suppressing the truth of God.
Paul is talking about all those “billions that never “know what the sin of rejecting Christ is” since they have not heard of Him.” They have rejected the truth about God that is plain in nature and do not seek for Him or for a way to absolve themselves of the guilt-debt they instinctively know they owe.
Let’s not confuse adults with children.
Jared – there is no “reply” button under your entry #13 so I’ll do it here. You said: “Dan, I believe babies go to heaven because even God cannot give a baby faith (unless he grows their brain supernaturally; which, God can do). They are credited with the righteousness of Christ because of their inability to possess saving faith.”
In all honesty, you’ve created an alternative path to salvation in this statement that logically leads to the purposeful increase of abortions in the name of saving people from hell. I know this is NOT what you intended to say, but it is the logical outcome nonetheless.
People go to hell because of the guilt of sin, not because they reject Jesus. I’m sure those of us with a more Reformed soteriology would agree with that. Those who have faith and believe are saved, those who do not are still in sin and go to hell.
Dan’s argument, and salvation in scripture, hinge on the guilt of sin. I admit at first I was wary of what Dan was writing because of this line: “So are we born guilty? My buddy would say yes, that the fact that all have sinned, that sin came through one man, Adam, that infants are indeed guilty. I disagree.” It struck me to a core belief and I began to wonder if my friend had been led astray or if there is some chemical in the flood waters in Iowa that has affected him 🙂
However, after reading the full article, I agree with him and offer Gen 3 as proof. Adam and Eve were created without sin but both were created with the capacity to sin. I know this sounds weird, but if they did not have the ability to disobey, then they would not have been tempted nor would they have understood the temptation.
Because of their fall, the rest of humanity is cursed not only with the capacity to sin but also the PROPENSITY to sin. This means that when we are able to understand the choice between good and evil (mentally, emotionally, spiritually) we will always choose evil. Adam, Eve, & Jesus are the only humans who were created or incarnated who had the capacity but not initially the propensity for sin. Adam & Eve gained the propensity when they fell from the state of created Grace. Jesus, if He did not have the capacity to sin would not have been capable of temptation, would not have been fully human, and therefore could not have been our redeemer.
I believe Dan has hit on an original truth that definitively answers if little kids go to Heaven; something that King David understood but somehow we’ve missed. As descendants of our first parents, we are conceived: 1) in God’s image, after their likeness with the capacity to choose good or evil; 2) in sin, after their choice, with the propensity to always choose evil. However, until an understanding of consequence is developed in children, they do not have standing to be guilty of their actions. This is consistent with Dan’s logic regarding conditioned responses vs. value based decisions.
Greg, abortion is almost always murder, period. I don’t understand what in the world you’re pointing to since you and I both are arguing that all babies go to heaven. If I’m encouraging abortions, you are as well. I think you made a ridiculous statement here.
Maybe your right, that the abortion application could be applied to either perspective… I withdraw that and apologize. Evidently I didn’t think that through.
I’m saying that there is no guilt until the recognition of it comes to the child (the law came and death came with it). Therefore, since the child has now judicial standing of “guilty” (is incapable of it) then God brings that child to Heaven.
You are saying that all are guilty from conception and that if the child dies before being able to understand faith or have faith, that they get the merits of Christ anyway: that is universalism. I know you don’t mean that, but logically that is what you are saying.
Greg, we’re both arguing universalism for children. The difference is that I believe Jesus died for children too. I believe they need His blood. I believe when the Bible speaks about the sinfulness of the world, children are included. I believe when the Bible speaks of the exclusivity of Christ in getting to His Father, that children are included. In order for you and Dan to make your argument, you have to argue that most of the Bible does not apply to children.
I think the evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor. We may have to agree to disagree though.
I’ve enjoyed the dialogue and appreciate the arguments.
Could it be that these arguments for children being given grace without exercising faith are the result of dispensational theology?
There is a special dispensation for the Jews (an alternative path of salvation), a special dispensation for Christians, and a special dispensation for children and the mentally dysfunctional (an alternative path of salvation)… I’m not that familiar with all the aspects of DT, but could this be the case?
I’m not trying to be insulting to anyone. Most of us generally think that writing was developed from cave drawing to pictographs to alphabets as societies developed. Even if you don’t, we were certainly all educated to believe so. This idea presumes an evolutionary outlook: that all things progress (evolve) to be more complex and more efficient. Most Christians never stop to consider that Adam & Eve were created with fully developed language and writing skills simply because that kind of idea never comes up in church or school.
Could it be that dispensationalism has similarly infiltrated and affected our logic and we don’t know it? We see a special dispensation for children but would never label it as such?
Greg, we’re not arguing for an alternative path to salvation. It’s still through Christ alone. It’s also by faith alone; however, since God is the giver of faith and repentance as well, He can credit those that are incapable of faith and repentance with the righteousness of Christ. Children are not capable of receiving or practicing the avenue through which Christ’s blood is applied: faith.
You guys are arguing for an alternative Way of salvation besides Christ. You’re arguing that children do not need the blood of Christ. Thus, for children, Jesus is not the only Way to God the Father. They do not need Him; they merely need to die before God counts their sins against them.
If I preach the funeral of a child, I emphasize the gospel. What do you emphasize since the child didn’t need the gospel?
I emphasis the Gospel because the child is with Christ. How do you scripturally make the argument that God just allows some sinners to go to heaven, because they have sin from birth, but haven’t done anything to sin? Can a baby sin? Can an infant lie, murder, steal, lust, hate? Your point is that babies are guilty of sin because of original sin, even though they haven’t done anything, and get forgiven for Adam’s sin because God just says “this one doesn’t count”. I think I would go with paedobaptism before I agreed with that. Makes 0 sense!
Dan, be fair to what I’m arguing. Where did I say that God just “allows” some sinners to go to heaven? I argued that it’s through Christ that they go to heaven. How in the world is this inconsistent with Scripture?
Also, where did I say “this one [sin] doesn’t count?” Their sin is crucified in Christ; this is my argument. God credits them with Christ’s righteousness since they are incapable of faith. They deserve hell; however, through the grace of God through Christ, they receive heaven. The responsibility to believe is not required of those that cannot believe in anything.
You on the other hand are arguing that children do not need the blood of Jesus. Jesus however wanted the children to come to Him. Doesn’t this point to the fact that children need Jesus?
Finally, concerning infants sinning. My children are little sinners. They sin from the time they’re very little. They throw fits because they want to be sovereign: “It’s my way or the highway.” They don’t listen to parents because they want to be God, etc. You don’t have to teach a child how to sin.
I disagree with you, it’s not that your children are sinner any more than you dog is a sinner. Each animal that exists is seeking to continue on. I don’t believe that “sin” is just acting badly. I believe that sin is knowing what is right and not doing it, or knowing what is wrong and doing it anyway. Kids don’t know that fits are “wrong”, they just know they desire and seek to fulfill that desire. That’s not any different than working for something. They are using a method to fulfill a observed need.
Your “you don’t have to teach a child to sin” argument also isn’t valid. I am talking development, not instruction. You don’t teach a kid lots of things, I never showed my boys how to play with cars, they sorta figured it out. I never taught them how to laugh, they just knew. I didn’t teach them to smile, but until a certain age, they don’t smile. It’s a developmental thing that I firmly believe God put in kids to keep their nature of sin at bay until developmentally they are able to have faith. You argue “they have sin, but can’t have faith, so God says it’s ok”. I argue that God is a better creator than that, keeps the reality of sin in check with the ability for faith. Those things awaken at the same time.
I am also shocked by your “do children need Jesus” as if to say the only function of Christ is for the atonement for sin. Kids bring God glory. Kids bring Christ glory. They need Jesus because they bring Him glory.
Most of your argument about “not listening to parents because they want to be God” would come after the ability to understand the difference between right from wrong. I’m not saying kids are naturally “good”. I am saying that a child is incapable of knowing good and evil, and since they are in that state, they are like man before the fall, since man before the fall did not know good and evil.
Dan, I’m still shocked that you’re arguing that children don’t need the blood of Jesus. Not only this, but you argue that children bring God glory even apart from Christ’s blood. Rom. 5:8 however indicates that it’s through Christ’s finished work that we are loved. Do you believe that Jesus died for children too?
Dan, I’m emphasizing Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection because it’s the theme of redemptive history. From the OT to the NT, Christ is the theme. And, I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that would indicate that Christ’s exclusive statements would not apply to children. I’m arguing that children must come to Christ. You’re arguing that they don’t have to come to God or Christ. You’re arguing that they’re not sinners; you’re arguing that they’re not in need of Jesus’ finished work. I think you’re on dangerous ground.
Here is your argument:
1. Children need Jesus
2. Children can’t have saving faith
3. God lets them in Heaven without faith, cause they can’t have it.
So in your theory, kids go to Heaven without Jesus. Reconcile that.
If a baby is guilty of sin and needs Jesus, but doesn’t not place faith in Christ, that baby goes to hell.
Dan, you don’t have to agree with me. I’ve already reconciled your question. Children receive Christ apart from saving faith, since they’re incapable of receiving or placing faith in anything, the responsibility is lifted. They however are still responsible for their sins; and they still need the blood of Christ. God gives them Christ’s righteousness apart from saving faith.
I realize I’m in the realm of theory here; but, I’m not willing to say that children don’t need Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection in their stead. I think this is blatantly against what the Bible teaches. All humanity needs Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection.
They are responsible for sin, yet go to Heaven and don’t pay for it, and it is not redeemed by faith, God just imparts it? I love you brother, but I think you are arguing for the sake of not wanting to admit your theory makes little to no sense.
Dan, my theory makes more biblical sense than arguing that 1) Jesus didn’t die for children, 2) Children need no forgiveness from God, 3) Children get to God apart from the only Way Jesus Christ, 4) Most of the Bible doesn’t apply to children, etc.
God is God and imparts salvation to who He chooses ultimately anyways. I’m simply arguing that He can do this apart from providing saving faith as well in light of the inability of children to receive or appropriate saving faith. Children are not responsible for saving faith because even if God gave it, they cannot receive it or appropriate it. They however need Christ’s blood because they are sinners.
So Jared, what constitutes sin?
You are the one making the statement that “Jesus didn’t die for children”, I never said that. It’s not the norm for children to die as infants, but those who do are not yet condemned by sin. You are creating a dialectic argument based on your false-assumption. In your view, children get saved because God just credits them salvation. Not sure how Jesus plays into it, since they can’t confess, repent, or make Him Lord. Your theory has 0 biblical credibility. I would be more comfortable if you said babies go to hell. Instead, babies get to go to heaven as sinners with imputed righteousness for sin that was committed by someone else.
Dan, how is it false to say that Jesus didn’t die for children if infants do not need Jesus’ death?
Dan, everyone iwho is saved, is saved because God credits them salvation. No one is saved apart from Christ’s righteousness credited to their accounts. Also, I’ve already told you how Jesus plays into the salvation of babies/infants. They need His righteousness. They have original guilt; Adam’s sin is credited to them just as if they were in the Garden eating the fruit with him, because they were.
Finally, no one makes Jesus Lord. He is Lord. We either agree or disagree with this fact. Also, NO, Babies do NOT go to heaven “as sinners.” Their sins were crucified in Christ. They go to heaven completely cleansed… but, it’s based on Christ’s righteousness, not their own righteousness (your argument).
Concerning the credibility of my argument: 1) Original sin has already been argued on here scripturally; and I agree, 2) the Bible is clear that Jesus died for the world, 3) No one gets to God the Father except through Christ, children included, 4) There are not 2 ways of salvation: Christ alone. If children do not need saving, then they get to heaven apart from Christ.
I think your argument is the argument that has little biblical proof. We’re at an impass.
No, original sin has not been set scripturally, those are referring to taint, not guilt. Jesus died for the world, but if He cleansed all the world, then you only go to hell by rejecting Christ, which is works, not grace. I don’t believe in universalism. I understand what you are saying, and I see your logic, but I think it’s flawed. Salvation comes from repenting and confessing. Sin is an action or obmission that I don’t think babies are capable of.
Ezekiel 18:20 “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”
Galations 6:5 “For each one will have to bear his own load.”
Deut. 1:39: “Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.”
Babies going to heaven is not Salvation. It is death apart from the law, and the are judged apart from the law, and since they have no actions in which to be accountable for, they are judged as such. It’s pretty clear in Romans 1. They come in through the work of the Father and Son through creation.
Dan: Can you explain the passage that says Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned–Romans 5:12?
Yes, first the reality of death came to all men (and the rest of creation. Tree’s don’t sin, but they die). Second, the nature and propensity to sin came to all men, so all sin. Once temptation to do evil is experienced, we have the nature to follow that evil, thus sinning. It’s why it said “all sinned” and not “so are all guilty”. All sin when sin becomes available.
Romans 5:13-15
King James Version (KJV)
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Death reigned regardless and can one die without sin?
To deny our guilty and sinfulness apart from actions ( do we sin because we are sinners or are we sinners because we sin? ) is to deny original sin IMHO.
If we have a sin nature we are guilty, we will sin, and we will be held accountable for it.
Baptism does not regenerate but it is, I feel, more than a mere sign that someone believes. It meant much more than that to the early Christians and the commands of repent and be baptized are linked together.
As to children they are little sinners. I have three boys and they came out crying, selfish, and angry when their wills were thwarted. We did not have to teach them ” badness ‘” but we did have to teach them how to be good.
Since God is good He will do right by the children, but do they deserve Heaven because of their age?
It’s not because of age, it’s from a God given inability to acknowledge good from evil. If you are selfish, but unaware of evil, is it sin? Most of you would say yes, but I reject the notion that we can sin unaware. If sin is not a choice, then it’s forced upon us, and God is unjust. If we sin without choice, why are we liable?
That is not to say we have freedom from sin, because the law awakens the sinful desires and they in turn bring sin and sin, when full grown, brings death.
Bottom line folks, if children are guilty of sin, they go to hell without confession and repentance. I feel my position is justified through the texts I share, but if I agree with your statement, that we are born guilty, then the only scriptural support is the babies go to hell. No way around it. Wages of sin is death. Sin=hell, only way out is confess Jesus and believe God raised Him. No other options given.
Dan, why does a baby die if he’s sinless? So, God judges babies temporally for Adam’s sin, but not eternally for Adam’s sin?
Why is it “fair” in your mind for God to judge babies temporally for Adam’s sin, but not eternally for Adam’s sin?
Also, why do you think it’s better and more biblical to argue that children are not sinners than it is to argue that they’re sinners that need the blood of Christ; and that this blood is credited to them automatically since they’re incapable of saving faith?
“Dan, why does a baby die if he’s sinless? So, God judges babies temporally for Adam’s sin, but not eternally for Adam’s sin?”
I have been reading this thread with total fascination. It has brought home for me why some denoms baptize babies.(Which I am totally against) Because of the very questions and positions being presented here.
I am not theologian nor play one on TV but have a few thoughts.
1. We are born in corrupted bodies into a corrupted world where Satan roams. And because of this it rains on everyone. Babies die of cancer, etc.
2. Jesus made an extraordinary statement in response to who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven when He said:
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
So, what is it about children that Jesus would make such a declaration? Was it the lack of abstract understanding? Was it the child’s lowly position in that culture? Have you all ever met a “humble” child? :o)
How do we become like children? Is it the trust they place in the adults around them which we would map to trusting Christ?
Plants die. Do they sin?
I never said God judges babies for Adam’s sin, and I hate the word “fair”. They have the consequences in the world, we all live with the temporal consequences of sin and it’s existence. You are really looking for holes in things, twisting them and trying to exploit them. There is a lack of intellectual integrity in this whole thing.
Dan, the wages of sin is death. Children die, if not for their own sin, and not for Adam’s sin, then why do they die? At the very least, you must admit that they’ve been judged due to Adam’s sin. You’ve already stated that the Bible never says God judges one man for another man’s sin. But, how to you answer God’s judgment toward all humanity due to Adam’s sin?
Concerning “intellectual integrity,” I’m not sure to what you’re referring. You can disagree with my argument all you want, but don’t accuse me of lacking intellectual integrity just because you disagree. I’m trying to ask questions.
“the wages of sin is death” is eternal death, spiritual death, physical death is a result of the fallen world. Animals and plants also die, but not because THEY sin.
The intellectual integrity is the lack of coherence. There is no structure, there are holes, conflicts, contradictions and overlap. I am not saying YOU lack integrity, I think you rock. I am saying your argument lacks integrity, structural, sound integrity.
Sin is a choice. Men always do what they most want and by nature we are sinners. Being born into a sinful state is more than enough to deserve Hell as He is perfect. Is there a Scriptural reason to exclude one’s sinfulness because of ignorance? Romans 1-3, I know it’s main audience is adults, but it clearly states that there are none that are ignorant as God has made Himself known and all are shut up under sin. If ignorance is an excuse then the absolute worse thing we could ever do is evangelize those who have never heard the truth.
<>
We sin because of our own lusts-what is within us and is inherently in our nature.
Luther said “Is there a Scriptural reason to exclude one’s sinfulness because of ignorance?”
The answer is yes, in my opinion, we actually see God doing this in the O.T. Deut. 1:39 The children of Israel who were under the age of twenty during the golden calf incident were not held accountable by God.
“Is there a Scriptural reason to exclude one’s sinfulness because of ignorance?”
‘And Jesus said,
“Father, forgive them,
for they know not what they do. . .” ‘
( from the Gospel of St. Luke, 23:34)
I’m talking about babies! Babies don’t choose, they don’t have the cognitive development to choose, they don’t know right or wrong. Do you all not see how you are contradicting yourself? Sin is a choice, yet we are guilty for someone else’s choice? Did the law bring death? Did I die because I broke the law? Paul says so, but no one seems to care what Paul says.
Because of the sin of Adam.
Dan, I believe children go to heaven when they die, but only because God changes them as he does us. He grants them salvation out of his marvelous Grace.
If what you say is true, then good people could go to heaven, and that simply isn’t true Dan. Christ died (one man) because sin entered into the world by one man(Adam). As a result all of us are born sinners. Yes, before we commit in action one sin, we are sinners the moment we are conceived.
No Debbie, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that laying in a crib, crying, pooping and drinking a bottle, none of those things are sin. I am very opposed to the idea that infants are guilty (their are dead in sin and trespass, apart from God, deserve Hell) because of Adam’s sin.
I believe that everyone has a sin nature. We have the taint of sin, the knowledge of good and evil. As SOON AS WE BECOME AWARE OF SIN, WE SIN. EVERYONE SINS, but I firmly believe that if the Bible teaches we are born into the nature and the reality of the sinful world. We ask people if they have ever broken God’s laws. Tell me, a 3 week old, which one of God’s laws are they breaking? Don’t give me the ‘selfish’ argument either, cause kids don’t have enough knowledge of reality to acknowledge others to be selfish. It’s an absurd argument from a developmental standpoint. As kids get older, then sin and then need Salvation.
I have a hard time with the fact so many of you believe God sets a standard that we can’t meet because we are guilty for what Adam did. I understand we all need Jesus, but if Children aren’t innocent, they go to hell. That’s it.
So, our choices are either 1) Agree with Dan or 2) Admit that all babies go to hell?
Dan, at the very least, you’re wrong about these being the only choices. Why are you so vehemently against children being guilty for Adam’s sin? Who are you to be so vehemently against something that the Bible is not vehemently against. Your argument is not clearly Scriptural. So, why are you so dogmatic?
Just give me something solid I can say “ok that makes sense”. Your logic is not consistent, there are no sinners who are redeemed by virtue of not doing anything. I have pointed out passages that state that men are guilty for their own sins, not those of their fathers, but for some reason, they don’t apply to Adam? You haven’t made a point for your position that isn’t scripturally inconsistent.
Is it possible that there are some things we just don’t, and can’t know?
Then again, what does it mean to say, “I know this or that?”
It seems to me the question of where a child goes when they die cannot be “known” in in sure manner. All we can do is speculate.
What we can “know” from Scripture seems to be: babies are not proper candidates for baptism. That seems to be something the Scripture teaches so we can “know” it. I don’t see the same kind of teaching about what happens to children who die before the age of accountability (which we also cannot know).
I was just taking a break and thought I’d throw this into the mix.
Most of the arguments here are one small step from paedobaptism. Many of you would tell me “sinner’s don’t go to heaven because sin can’t be in God’s presence” and then say “babies area sinners, but get to go to heaven”. Either sinners go to Heaven or they don’t. If babies are sinners, apart from Christ they go to hell. Period. If God has given them a developmental nature that gives them the ability to have sin and faith at the same time, then they have hope.
How can you choose sin when you are unable to choose faith? Is sin more powerful than faith?
People don’t go to hell because they “choose” sin. They go to hell because they reject salvation. I think there is a difference.
My question: that nobody answered is “can we know something that God has not revealed?
I think you can argue this point until the cows come home and you will not be able to gain a satisfactory answer save one: God is loving and powerful and He always does what is right.
People don’t go to hell because they reject salvation, they go to hell because everyone is already going to hell. Everyone to whom you present the Gospel is ALREADY going to hell.
Salvation is the “saving” of people from the penalty for their sin by the power of the Holy Spirit. Rejecting Jesus doesn’t put people on the “fast-track” or shove them to the font of the line, it confirms their sinfulness.
Dan, are you reading my arguments at all? I’ve said numerous times that children go to heaven cleansed of sin because of Jesus’ blood cleansing them. They are credited with Christ’s righteousness since they are incapable of believing in anything or anyone. If faith is a gift, then He can give it to whomever He chooses.
It still blows my mind that you’re arguing that children are not sinners. You actually believe that some humans don’t need Jesus’ blood? Where in the world do you get this from Scripture? You’re assuming this based on sources outside the Bible. All truth is God’s truth only if it’s true. And, if it contradicts Scripture, then it’s not true. In order to make your argument, you must admit that most of the Bible does not apply to children. Who are you to make such a statement? God knew the developmental stages of children long before you did.
So, the Bible should read:
Romans 3:23, “For all [non-children] have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”
Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord [except for children. Children receive eternal life apart from Christ Jesus our Lord.]
Romans 5:8, “but God shows his love for us [except for children] in that while we were still sinners [except for children], Christ died for us [except for children].”
John 14:6, “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me [except for children. Children don’t need My finished work.].”‘
The list is virtually endless. Since children are not singled out in Scripture as a different class of humanity, the burden is on you to prove that they don’t need Jesus’ blood.
Finally, your use of Romans 7 to suggest that Paul was sinless at one point in his life before he was aware of the law is inaccurate. Here is the passage Rom. 7:7-14:
7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.”
1) v.7: Paul does argue that it was through the Law that he knew sin. Based on the context, this simply means that his sin was revealed to him. It was lying “dead” until God told Him what to do and what not to do through His Law. 2) v.8: The Sin in Paul seized the opportunity to disobey God. 3) v.9: Paul was alive apart from the law in the sense that sin was not known to him. 4) v.10: The Law killed Paul because of his inability to keep it due to his sin. 5) v.11: Sin deceived Paul through using the commandment. 6) v.12: God’s Law is holy and good. 7) v.13: And here is the reason why Paul said what he said above. Sinners, in order for their sin to be revealed, “shown to be sin,” were given God’s holy Law in order for sin to become sinful beyond measure. 8) v.14: Paul here calls the Law spiritual, but argues that his flesh is saturated with sin.
Dan, where do you get from the above verse that Paul at any point was arguing that he was sinless? You’re assuming that Paul saying he was “alive” means that he was sinless. You’re stretching the text; for Paul argues that he was sinful before he understood the law. But, when comparing his sinfulness before his knowledge of the law to after his knowledge of the law, it’s the difference between being “alive” and “dead.” It’s inaccurate to say that Paul is arguing he was sinless at one point; after all, he is “of the flesh, sold under sin.”
My thesis comes from Romans chapter 7, verses 7-12.
“What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known to covet if the law had not said “You Shall Not Covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandments came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”
Unpack this. The law (being God’s law of the covenant or the conscious and laws of man, based on the law in their heart) brings sin. Sin then kills us spiritually. Paul says there was once a time when we was alive, apart from the law. Tell me, when was the time? I would say before he knew and comprehended the law. Once he did, the law awoke sin, brought death and he sinned, and therefore became in need of re-birth.
In he was once alive apart from the law, what does that mean? When one it? If he died before the law brought death, what happens?
And I disagree with your exegesis. Show me where Paul says he was sinful before the law? If the wages of sin is death and he says he is alive, how is he sinful yet alive? Your exegesis doesn’t use scripture to interpret scripture? You are inconsistent with the rest of Romans.
Dan, you tell me what v.13 and v.14 mean. You’re not letting Paul explain himself.
Dan, you’re eisegetically assuming your interpretation is correct. “Death” and “alive” are not litteral here. Paul is comparing and contrasting his sin before he knew the law and after he knew the law. Read v.13, and Paul tells you what he means: “13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.”
Paul argues that “sin” that was already present in him before he understood the Law, took the Law and used it to become sinful beyond measure.
You are eisegetically assuming that “alive” means sinless, when it clearly doesn’t, based on v.13 and v.14.
Yes, the nature of sin is present, but dead. That is original sin, the nature of sin, yet the nature itself is not sin, but the nature of sin. The law, being good caused the nature of sin to cause sin, which we know brings death. Once that the law has brought sin, sin brought death, we become slaves to sin, so Paul is no longer able to do what he wants.
Remember, before the law, there was no comprehension of good, evil or really life. As soon as developmentally there was the capacity to comprehend, sin springs forth and produces death. DO NOT TAKE the reality of the age and development out. It’s not like Paul was 24, we was a small child when sin brought for death.
“The wages of sin is death” is speaking to spiritual death and “eternal life” is spiritual life, otherwise we would physically live forever. You interpretation are inconsistent with the context, the “death” is Romans 6:23 and here in 7 is the same concept.
Dan, how does a “sinful nature” become “exceedingly sinful” if it wasn’t sinful to start with (Rom. 7:13)? Paul says the law was given so that sin could be shown to be sin… not so our sinful nature could be shown to be our sinful nature. You’re not interpreting the text.
You cannot force your “age and development” argument on Scripture; which is exactly what you’re doing. You are reinterpreting Paul based on an assumption. There’s no way that you can argue that the Apostle Paul has “age and development” on his mind when writing Rom. 7 even though since the beginning, man has obviously known that children grow and develop.
Finally, if I take “dead” to mean “dead” the way that you’re arguing, then dead means completely dead… NO SINFUL NATURE. If Paul is saying “sin[sinful nature] lies dead,” before the Law, then there is no sinful nature. It’s totally dead. You cannot argue that sin in v. 8 = sinful nature and is completely dead, and yet, comes alive due to the Law. How can a dead sinful nature come alive if dead means totally dead as you’re arguing? Thus, how can you argue that Paul was fully alive, sinless, without Christ at one pont in his life?
That’s the deal Dan. You don’t choose sin, it’s a natural part of who we are at birth. The Bible is clear we are born in sin. That has nothing to do with paedo baptism. When babies or children die before whatever age of accountability God has, I think it’s different for each child, they go to heaven. I get this from King David when his infant son passed away he knew he would see him someday.
We are born with the nature of sin, but how does a just God punish those who don’t have a choice? How do you repent and turn from something you didn’t choose to do? How does the fact that sin is just a part of humanity make us guilty? I agree babies go to Heaven, I disagree that sin is just a reality of human nature, and we have no choice, we just have it. It’s a fatalistic view that makes us not responsible. Sounds more like human tradition to me.
“Don’t blame John, he was born a jerk”
“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins”
– Ephesians 2:1
“Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)”
– Ephesians 2:5
“And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses”
– Colossians 2:13
We also have 1 Corinthians 12:3 which says:
Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
I believe in children there has to be the same regeneration, but as children it is done by God before death. I believe he is able to do whatever he desires to do. I guess my emphasis is that God is God. I am sure you have heard this before Dan. But I hadn’t. I didn’t even know these passages were in the Bible. I haven’t always been Calvinist. For 35 years I was non-Calvinist. It was all I knew. But to realize that God was God was God blew me away.
“Suffer the little children to come unto me” I believe was more than just Christ saying it for that time period, I believe he was relating it to how we are to come to him, but also that he would bring these children to heaven should they die as children.
Audience? Context? Sin kills us and we need Christ. No one is arguing that. The debate is WHEN does sin kill us? When WE sin or when someone else sins? Who’s fault is it? Did this man sin or was it his father?
It’s our fault. We have no one to blame but ourselves. How can a just God do? Because no matter what he does, God is just. From a human view it may not seem just, but God cannot sin, God cannot make a wrong choice, God cannot do anything that we could call unjust. Even sending children to hell, he would still be just. (As I said I do not believe children go to hell but for sake of illustration, if God sent children to hell he would still be just. It’s Grace, not justice that we are in heaven.
Sin killed us spiritually the moment Adam sinned. We’ve been spiritually dead ever since. By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin. By one man death was conquered through his death on the cross.
Is sin more powerful than faith? Before God intervenes yes. Even after we are Christians, sin is a powerful force both in the NT and the OT. These men were not sinless. Difference is we now feel sorrow for our sin because we hurt the One we love, whereas before God wasn’t a thought to us.
EVERYONE –
There is a major disconnect here that most of you are blind to… and it isn’t your fault, however, it is a HUGE blind spot.
All of you here are making STRICTLY BIBLICAL/SPIRITUAL arguments. You are dividing what you think you see/believe in scripture from from the biological development of humans from birth through adulthood.
THIS IS WRONG AND IT HAS TO STOP!
For too long, the world has held sway over the ideas of biology, botany, chemistry, physics, geology, anthropology, etc and the Churches official response is to hole-up with the Bible and say “Well, they can’t take THIS away, it is spiritual study, not a natural science.” This is the MOST FOOLISH mistake made by The Church (and I mean the whole Body of Christ, not just one or two denominations) in the last 200 years.
ALL TRUTH IS GOD’S TRUTH! We need to reclaim that and Dan is making that effort here and being mistreated in the process.
None of you have interacted with his statements regarding childhood development, NONE. It is embarrassing that most of you here are excoriating his thesis but not really discussing the WHOLE MEASURE. You disagree with his scripture but FAIL to take into account how he is combing God’s special revelation with His natural revelation and trying to understand more of how God’s Mercy and Grace and Justice and Love work together in harmony.
I understand though that (most likely) none of you were taught to think scripturally and naturally at the same time; almost none of the seminaries and certainly none of the public and most of the private colleges don’t do so. However, if you continue to try and understand and apply scripture without fully accounting that it is applied to humans who live in a spiritual AND natural world, then you will all continue to fall short in applying scripture.
The truth’s of the Bible aren’t merely abstract ideas that we can debate and disagree and cite this or that theologian or commentary, they are for living breathing people, men women, and children who are at different stages of life, different levels of development (physically, emotionally, mentally, socially). You would do well to keep these in mind.
Please EVERYONE, take a step back, re-read Dan’s thesis in it’s entirety and see if what he saying might make more sense. All of you who dissent are disregarding the childhood development part of this, the natural, observable, not-necessarily-scripture part of what he is saying.
I was taken aback at first read, but I agree with what he is saying because of the WHOLE thesis, not just the scriptural part. Here is a Cliff’s Notes version:
1) All humans go through different stages of development from birth through death
2) God knows these stages (having created them) AND takes them into account as a part of His Mercy, Justice, Grace, and Love when viewing humanity
3) As we ALL agree babies and young children are normally (John the Baptizer being a glaring exception) incapable of exercising conscious Faith
4) The corollary to this is that they are incapable of exercising conscious sin
5) It follows, taking into account the stain of original sin AND the whole council of Scripture, that God does not hold guilt of sin those (babies and young children) who are developmentally incapable of exercising either conscious sin or conscious faith.
Please don’t continue to ignore or disregard the developmental (natural science) aspect of this thesis. Doing so puts Dan in the undeserved position of advocating universalism. It also puts you all in the place of showing you cannot accurately argue this thesis on ALL it’s merits and forces you to use circular reasoning.
“ALL TRUTH IS GOD’S TRUTH! ”
Yes…..the laws of nature are set by God, and yes, you are correct, the ‘natural law’ is God’s law also,
He is the Creator of all that is seen and unseen
Thanks Greg. I appreciate you interacting with ALL the information given.
As an educator, I have seen how God has designed and equipped Children at different stages, and it seems to correlate why so many come to faith between 6 and 10. It’s not an accident, I truly believe God worked this for a purpose.
Greg, scripture is the only thing I can use to form my theology.
Dan, Greg:Nothing we do before Christ honors God at all, because the good that we do is tainted according to scripture. And….any good that we do is from God either before we become believers so we can’t even take credit for that.
That should be before Christ is in our lives.
Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God’s majesty……John Calvin
I’ve not really participated in this, but I think the discussion (those parts I’ve read) point up a fact of theology:
Defining sin and the basis of judgment is the fundamental truth of theology (perhaps only second to theology proper).
Hi Dan,
I like the way you are thinking through these issues. I have a few comments that I hope will help.
If your paedo-baptist buddy believes that baptism removes the taint of sin, we are talking about a special breed of paedo-baptism called baptismal regeneration(BR). This type of belief is common in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Restoration (Church of Christ – Campbellite) churches. Most Protestants who practice paedo-baptism (Reformed and Methodist both come to mind) do not believe in BR. They believe it is a real baptism, but does not remove the taint of sin.
I agree with your developmental idea in children. I agree that children bear original sin (the sinfulness that comes from being a descendant of Adam) and the effects thereof (sharing in Adam’s death). I think the Scriptures are fairly clear on original sin. They are not nearly as clear on original guilt (our liability for punishment for Adam’s sin). The way I see the whole counsel of Scripture, I don’t think original guilt is implied. Original sin definitely is, though.
I think something that would be helpful is to see sin as a relational issue rather than a lawbreaking issue. I think that could be away to clear up the idea that a small child is still sinful though she hasn’t committed any specific sins as such, and certainly wouldn’t understand it if she did. All human beings (Jesus excepted) are born “estranged from God.”
If the triune God is inherently relational within himself (and he is); and if part of the image of God in humanity is to relate – both to God and to one another, then sin is that which breaks the relationship. Adam and Eve’s sin caused them to break relationship with God, with themselves (they were ashamed of being naked) and each other (they did not like the other looking at his/her nakedness). Sin is the utter breakdown of the relational pattern of creation in all three dimensions. All of the OT law showed what the rules of the perfect relational harmony were in all three dimensions, and it could not be kept except by God (incarnate).
Children are born in this state of relational disharmony. It manifests itself early in acts of anger and selfishness, though the child has no idea it is wrong. Only at a later age (as you state) does the rightness/wrongness of actions creep into the thought process. The problem is, the tear in the relational harmony is so great there is nothing we can do to fix it.
In sum, I wonder if the tremendous emphasis we put on the lawcourt metaphor of salvation is really what we should be doing. It is in the Bible, to be sure, but so are other pictures of salvation in the Scriptures as well. We owe our ideas to the Reformers, who admittedly (as do we) read the Bible through the lens of their own situation. (Calvin was a lawyer before he was a theologian!) Anyway, it is interesting.
And yes, I do believe babies are saved. Even Jesus said so!
Jim G.
FWIW, you may find my thoughts here interesting:
http://sbcimpact.org/2008/07/09/semi-infant-baptism-in-baptist-churches/
Thanks for that David, great article. Maybe my expressed language is too radical, which has put people on guard.
There is simply too much already here in the meta to read through so forgive me if I repeat anything already said. Our understanding of original sin suffers from the fact that we need metaphors to talk about it (and even God recognizes this because this is how He communicated it to us). The reason this can be a problem for us is that we tend to debate the metaphors as though they were the truth they are meant to convey. Even Biblical metaphors only convey a limited amount of information.
If sin is merely our actions, then God would have sinned by causing Joseph’s brothers to sell him into slavery. Since we know that God didn’t sin and Joseph’s brothers did, then we must say that the delineation is where the Bible placed it: on the difference in intent. But even that needs to be refined. In the law of Moses, there was provision for making atonement for unintentional sins.
Let me leave that thought where it is and switch to the question of the eternal condition of infants who die. One fact must be noted: the Bible doesn’t say. But the Bible does say that God is sovereign, that everything He does is good, and that we are in no position to question Him as though we know better than Him what He should do. Therefore, we are left to fall back on faith; that is we must trust Him.
And that is the point of both our ability to overcome original sin and our concern over infants who die. It is more important that we trust God in what He does than that we know for sure what He’s going to do in every situation. The best theological answer therefore is, “I don’t know what God will do, but I know that what He will do is best.”
The temptation is to comfort each other according to our human sensibilities rather than comforting each other based on what God has revealed to us. It is a false comfort that pretends to know what has not been revealed to us.
Unintenional sin works with the Holiness code. You can accidently touch a corpse. Since the fulfillment of the law though Jesus, you no longer ‘accidently’ sin.