True Faith Perseveres
January 9th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
Today’s post continues the discussion from last week on the perseverance of the saints.
It is crucial to understand what the biblical doctrine of perseverance does not mean. It does not mean that people who “accept Christ” can then live any way they please without fear of hell. The expression “eternal security” is sometimes used in this sense, as is “once saved, always saved.” R. T. Kendall, arguing for the latter phrase, defines its meaning thus:
Whoever once truly believes that Jesus was raised from the dead, and confesses that Jesus is Lord, will go to heaven when he dies. But I will not stop there. Such a person will go to heaven when he dies no matter what work (or lack of work) may accompany such faith. (Once Saved, Always Saved, p. 19)
Kendall also writes, “I hope no one will take this as an attack on the Westminster Confession. It is not that” (p. 22).
But it is precisely that! Kendall expressly argues against Westminster’s assertion that faith cannot fail. He believes faith is best characterized as a single look: “one need only see the Sin Bearer once to be saved” (p. 23). This is a full-scale assault against the doctrine of perseverance affirmed in the Westminster Confession. Worse, it subverts Scripture itself. Unfortunately, it is a view that has come to be widely believed by Christians today.
John Murray, noting this trend a half-century ago, defended the expression “perseverance of the saints”:
It is not in the best interests of the doctrine involved to substitute the designation, “The Security of the Believer,” not because the latter is wrong in itself but because the other formula is much more carefully and inclusively framed. . . . It is not true that the believer is secure however much he may fall into sin and unfaithfulness. Why is this not true? It is not true because it sets up an impossible combination. It is true that a believer sins; he may fall into grievous sin and backslide for lengthy periods. But it is also true that a believer cannot abandon himself to sin; he cannot come under the dominion of sin; he cannot be guilty of certain kinds of unfaithfulness. The truth is that the faith of Jesus Christ is always respective of the life of holiness and fidelity. And so it is never proper to think of a believer irrespective of the fruits in faith and holiness. To say that a believer is secure whatever may be the extent of his addiction to sin in his subsequent life is to abstract faith in Christ from its very definition and it ministers to that abuse which turns the grace of God into lasciviousness. The doctrine of perseverance is the doctrine that believers persevere. . . . It is not at all that they will be saved irrespective of the their perseverance or their continuance, but that they will assuredly persevere. Consequently the security that is theirs is inseparable from their perseverance. Is this not what Jesus said? “He than endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.”
Let us not then take refuge in our sloth or encouragement in our lust from the abused doctrine of the security of the believer. But let us appreciate the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and recognize that we may entertain the faith of our security in Christ only as we persevere in faith and holiness to the end. (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 154-55)
Any doctrine of eternal security that leaves out perseverance distorts the doctrine of salvation itself. Heaven without holiness ignores the whole purpose for which God chose and redeemed His people:
God elected us for this very purpose. “He chose us in him [Christ] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph. 1:4). We were predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ in all His spotless purity (Rom. 8:29). This divine choice makes it certain that we shall be like Him when He appears (1 John 3:2). From this fact, John deduces that everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself just as Christ is pure (1 John 3:3). His use of the word “everyone” makes it quite certain that those who do not purify themselves will not see Christ, nor be like Him. By their lack of holiness they prove that they were not so predestinated. The apostle thus deals a crushing blow to Antinomianism. (Richard Alderson, No Holiness, No Heaven!, p. 88)
God’s own holiness thus requires perseverance. “God’s grace insures our persevering`but this does not make it any less our persevering.” Believers cannot acquire “the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” unless they “press on toward the goal” (Phil 3:14). But as they “work out [their] salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12), they find that “it is God who is at work in [them], both to will and work for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).
Amen – God choosing me to be part of the elect is the greatest challenge to me personally.
Why me?
I know the answer is so God can be glorified because He saved a dirty, filthy, wretched sinner and showed the world that even I, Wayne, can be transformed through His grace and mercy.
But that is still hard to fathem in my mind that the Father would draw me to Christ and forgive my sins and give me everlasting life with Him.
Praise Him.
This discussion has illuminated the topic of salvation and perseverance to a wonderfully great degree.
The blogs have given insite to both sides of the issue.
Those who are saved, are just that..saved; and they will evidence that salvation in earnest seeking after God, hatred of sin, obedience to Christ’s commands, love for one another, and a desire to God’s great work of the harvest of those whom God has prepared for salvation.
Let each of us humbly study the scriptures in light of these articles on the topic, and trust in what scripture says.
Scripture in its entirety is our answer of truth, and the guide, correction, and comfort for every true believer.
Greetings in Christ!
I find myself, as an evangelical Christian, at odds with this article. I would argue that if the person claiming to be a “Christian” is living a life that is contrary to the heart and character of the Savior, they have not backslidden or “lost their salvation” but were not indeed a believer to begin with. The seed was snatched from the shallow, weed choked soil of their heart.
I was raised to embrace “eternal security” as a child, and as a minister of the gospel in 7 diferent denominations – that is what I preach. If I can lose my salvation, Jesus’ death must be repeated for me; and we all know that is not necessary or posssible.
I preach eternal security, but live as if there is no such thing. I love and respect my brothers and sister in the faith who believe differently; and some day we will sit in heaven and discuss our differences here – if they will even matter by then…
God’s peace to you all!
Pastor Bob
One very imporatant, and often overlooked aspect of perseverance has to do with it’s relationship to saving faith. There is a qualitative and substantive difference between saving faith and temporary or false faith.
A temporary faith is not just the “same kind” of faith as saving faith, but with a shorter duration. No. Rather the very nature of temporary faith differs from saving faith. So that, perseverance is not only a result of saving faith, but helps define it and distinguish it from other false faiths. Temporary faith never possessesd the possiblity of perseverence.
The grace of God which finds fulfillment in saving faith sustains the believer for eternity. Christians then persevere in the Faith, because God has determined to persevere in them!
From I have read , then perseverance of the saints means being obedeint to the end. To fail to continue on in obedient faith , to remain pure in life and doctrine is to lose salvation. Is that what is understood in the perserverance of the saints ?
To fail to continue on in obedient faith , to remain pure in life and doctrine is to lose salvation.
I could be wrong, but if one doesn’t persevere, then one doesn’t have true faith to begin with, and thus non-perseverance means that you never had salvation to begin with.
This statement: “Any doctrine of eternal security that leaves out perseverance distorts the doctrine of salvation itself.” tells me that the doctrines of perseverance and salvation are inextricably intertwined with each other. Inseparable, really.
Ray B,
This doctrine does not mean that if someone does not persevere that they lost there salvation, but that they were not truly saved in the first place.
Robert
Since it is unlikely Dr. MacArthur is going to jump in and answer Ray’s question, I’ll take a stab at it.
Ray asks, “To fail to continue on in obedient faith , to remain pure in life and doctrine is to lose salvation. Is that what is understood in the perserverance of the saints?”
The short answer is no. Ultimately yes, believers persevere based upon the foundation of saving faith. But this is no guarentee Christians will maintain a life of perfect purity in faith and practice. In fact, because of our remaining sin nature, it makes it impossible to do so.
The doctrine of the perseverence of the saints simply stated means that once God draws you unto Himself in an effectual salvific relationship through the finished work of Christ, you are His from that point forward. You complete the race. You run the course. God upholds you by His all powerful hand.
Our doctrine nor our life will be perfect this side of heaven. This is not what is taught by perseverence. Rather, it is that we lay hold of the promise of God, that by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, He loses none of those He calls to Himself.
I am in agony. I professed Christ as Savior as a young girl, and have been following — mostly — since. I am ever increasingly aware of my abject sinfulness; my every effort to obey Him is woefully inadequate. So I trust in Him to save me, and I keep trying to obey (again, failingly).
What will become of me on that last day? I am confused by this discussion, and swing back and forth between joyful comfort and desperate sadness.
David McCrory –
Thank you for your comments. I understand it as you’ve stated. All I know is that I am infinitely convinced that I cannot save myself by any of my effort — the finished work of Christ on the cross is my only hope. My works are only attempts to obey my Savior.
So why am I so jarred by these types of discussions? I know I can’t even do enough to obey — can I do enough to “persevere”?
Thank you for any encouraging and directing scriptures.
Okay. Let’s say that there are “professing” Christians who don’t persevere all the way to the end. And “P” maintains that they were never Christians in the first place. (1 John 2:19)
I think that in today’s culture it’s considered extremely bad manners to discern/judge and declare that someone was never a Christian in the first place.
The widow/widower don’t want to hear that. People will consider you overly judgmental and unnecessarily harsh and unloving. Therefore, you become hesitant to make these declarations that such a person was never a Christian. People’s ears are tickled by silence. They want to believe so-and-so was and is a Christian and is going to heaven. You want to be pastorally sensitive to others and keep your silence, even though you have doubts whether s/he was a Christian. This goes for both Arminians and Calvinists. Whether a person lost their salvation or never had it in the first place, you do not want to say. The inevitable comeback is “Only God can judge a person’s salvation. WHO ARE YOU to say whether this person is saved or not? You’re being far too judgmental. Just like the Pharisees. And you do know that Jesus had his harshest words for the Pharisees, don’t you?”
Whaddya gonna do, but just shut up and hold your peace for the sake of peace.
“Whaddya gonna do, but just shut up and hold your peace for the sake of peace. ”
Preach the word! You have to tell the truth
I think we have to bear in mind that God uses circumstances like the lost of a loved one as opportinuties to preach the good news of Christ.
If we cannot honestly say with some certainty a person has gone to heaven, then we shouldn’t, and then we use that an oppotinuty to speak to why our only hope is in Jesus.
Preach the word! You have to tell the truth
That’s kind of an awkward, sticky situation. Telling loved ones that you don’t think that the deceased will be in Heaven with God.
Or telling a person who thinks they’re a Christian that they’re really not a Christian. Or that they’re apostate.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t tell the truth. I’m just saying that there’s a high likelihood that it won’t be well-received and there’s a good chance that you’ll get demonised for your efforts. I believe that you could gently whisper the truth in the softest of tones with the most angelic purity on your face… and once they realize the substance of what you’re trying to convey, you’re gonna figuratively end up like John the Baptist.
Since this post does touch upon salvation, I thought I’d provide a Catholic article on salvation that someone pointed me towards. It’s long, but illuminating. Particularly the last paragraph.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6126
I don’t recall the Catholic Cardinal of this article alluding to perseverance….
I read the firstthings.com article and must say that there was a high level of ambiguity when addressing the fundamental requirement for salvation. Only through Christ (sola fide) can we be saved.
“believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments”
Believe the Word of God as taught by the church and obey the commandments?
“Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found”
Submit their lives? Join the community?
“Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled.”
Look forward? Try to ascertain?
“adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will.”
Seek and strive?
“Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice.”
Salvation through worship and service?
“God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.”
What kind of grace?
Saving grace can only be found in Christ alone (Eph. 2:8, 9: Rom. 10:9, 10). No one can no if one is saved, but there are indicators . The fruit of the Spirit is evident in believers walking in faith (Galatians 5:22).
‘Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. ‘
Perhaps the disciples should have asked, “who then CAN’T be saved”?
If Jesus will say “I never knew you” to MANY who call on His name, how can there be hope for Christ-rejecters?
Britta –
Did anyone answer your question here? This is something I wrestle with all of the time. It seems a most confusing thing, sometimes, even arrogant for me to think I am on the right track when weighed against such arguments.
Dear Mo and Britta,
Your questions are very important and close to my heart as a pastor.
John MacArthur wrote about this very issue in a booklet titled: “A Believer’s Assurance: A Practical Guide to Victory over Doubt” which you can read here: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2183.
I would also recommend that you avail yourselves of the resources listed at the bottom of that page.
Britt: One of the signs of genuine faith is the realization that one is a sinner and underserving of God’s grace. There are many more signs of true faith which John explains in his book titled: SAVED WITHOUT A DOUBT.
If you have a specific question about this issue, I will be glad to answer it. Let me encourage you to read the Epistle of I John which deals with how you can know for sure if you are saved.
Blessings,
Steve Lamm
Dear Britta,
Thank you for sharing your experience. Yes, like you stated, our works will never satisify God’s holy and righteous demands for a perfect life. Only Jesus Christ could do that. Ours then is to place our complete faith and trust in Him.
But even though we can find peace and assurance in this glorious truth, we should not become complacent. Proverbs tells us the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Therefore as we grow in the Lord, we should do so always with an eye to the great love and sacrifice it took to wash away our sins.
As a result, it can become, at times, overwhelming to believe God loved us enough to take away our awful sin. But when we do begin to feel this way, God bids us come to Him. He is our comfort and our strength. He will uphold us. He will love us. And the comfort and peace we have with God through Jesus Christ, cannot be surpassed.
If you continue to struggle and feel you might want more help, please email me,
david.mccrory@yahoo.com
Christ’s blessings,
David R. McCrory
Thanks to Steven Lamm and David R. McCrory for responding to Britta.
Thank you for your responses, dear brothers. I will study the materials you’ve recommended.
Peace of Christ…
If the beleiver does not persevere to the end , will they be lost ? Since God forgives when faith is professed then does it make any real difference in the salvation of an individual believer ? If staying faithful is true faith , then waht is the measure ? How amny works ? Or are any imporatant ? I mean what is the basic essentail for being saved ? A lot of preachers say accept Jesus in your heart as personal Savior and you are saved for all eternity. Are they teaching false docrtine ? Or is that the bare minimum ?
“I believe that you could gently whisper the truth in the softest of tones with the most angelic purity on your face… and once they realize the substance of what you’re trying to convey, you’re gonna figuratively end up like John the Baptist.”
LOL…again, been there, done that….
Eddie
Ray you ask,
“If the beleiver does not persevere to the end , will they be lost ?”
~ The point is ALL true believers persevere. So, no. None of them are lost.
You ask,
“Since God forgives when faith is professed then does it make any real difference in the salvation of an individual believer ?”
~ God does not forgive based upon a mere profession of faith. There must be a true possession of faith. Once you possess the gift of faith you are eternally saved.
You ask,
“If staying faithful is true faith , then waht is the measure ?”
~ I’m not sure what you’re asking here.
You ask,
“I mean what is the basic essentail for being saved ?”
~ Confessing our sins, repenting and placing our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as our only hope.
You ask,
“A lot of preachers say accept Jesus in your heart as personal Savior and you are saved for all eternity. Are they teaching false docrtine ? Or is that the bare minimum ? ”
~ This is a somewhat watered-down and vague Gospel message. A pure presentation of the Gospel deals with sin, repentance and faith by grace. Excepting Jesus into your heart could mean a lot of things.
I hope this helps,
David R. McCrory
david.mccrory@yahoo.com
Let me see if I understand the theology of this blog. True faith will persevere. Those who persevere are the elect. Then what about the brother overtaken in a trespass. Would he have drifted away if he was of true faith and would he have drifted if he is the elect ? If he is not the elect and is not of true faith then why bring him back because he is not the elect and therefore is chosen for hell. To bring him back is to give him a false security. Let me know if I am understanding in the right way.
Ray you say,
“True faith will persevere.”
~ Yes.
“Those who persevere are the elect.”
~ Correct.
“Then what about the brother overtaken in a trespass. Would he have drifted away if he was of true faith and would he have drifted if he is the elect ?”
~ The doctrine of perservence does not say Christians will not struggle with sin or that they will not, at times, question their salvation. What it does teach is that those who possess true saving faith will not fully nor finally fall away from Christ.
“If he is not the elect and is not of true faith then why bring him back because he is not the elect and therefore is chosen for hell. To bring him back is to give him a false security”
~ The Church does not have the capabiltiy to peer into the heart of man to see whether his is of the elect of God. The secret things belong to the Lord (Deut. 29:29).
~ Ours is the responsiblity of offering Christ to all. And then of those who profess to receive Him, disciple them in such a way as to cultivate the fruits of righteousness. It is through the produce of fruit (or the lack thereof) the Church is able to see whether the seed of the Gospel fell on fertile or rocky ground.
Again, I hope this helps,
David R. McCrory
david.mccrory@yahoo.com
David ,
I guess where I find all this confusing is in saying the elect will be Christians of true faith but some will fall away and eventually find their way back. Does not sound consistent. Too confusing. Either the true believer, the elect will stay with their faith from beginning to end or they are not the elect. Not saying not sin but to depart and then come back. How can that be true persevering faith ? And what about the non-elect. Poor souls who are arbitrarily sent to hell and have no hope whatsoever. They apparently cannot make a decision to follow Jesus Christ.
“I guess where I find all this confusing is in saying the elect will be Christians of true faith but some will fall away and eventually find their way back.”
~ The falling away of true believers is a falling out of favor with God, as a child of God. We don’t cease being a child of God simply because we are disobedient. Hebrews tells us God chastens those He loves. Even the great apostle Paul confessed his struggles against the flesh (Rom 7). Struggle with sin, falling into sin are all a part of being sanctified.
~ There is no struggle with sin outside of Christ. To say we will not sin this side of heaven is to say we become perfect this side of heaven, an unBiblical teaching. So, it is perfectly consistent to say that Christians can (and do) fall into sometimes grevious and terrible sin, but thanks be to God, He does not leave us there.
~ The reason it’s persevering faith is not because we don’t stumble along the path, but because we never fall completely off the path itself.
Blessings,
David R. McCrory
This is an interesting post, but if I’m allowed to differ, I find it to be a bit misleading and confusing.
This doctrine of perseverance (as you’ve described it) seems to nullify one of God’s first blessings to mankind: volition. To say that I could lose my salvation, but I won’t because of my predestined elitism is not acknowledging one of our earliest blessings: Free Will.
The point is that once a believer has freely chosen to trust Christ, they are alive in Him and dead to sin and the law. Once and forever. If this is not the case, then you are implying that Jesus’s work is not finished. If I could lose my salvation by falling away, then how can I regain it? Doesn’t this imply that Christ would have to die again so that I could re-gain my salvation?
And how does this doctrine of perseverance apply to parables dealing with this issue, such as theparable of the Prodigal Son? Was there any time during his absence that the Prodigal Son was not welcome home? Was he pre-destined not to ask for his inheritance, not to leave the farm, and not to waste all of his money, and if so then why did he do all of these things in spite of his predetermined perseverance? Was he required to do something when he returned in order to be accepted back into his father’s house? Or didn’t his father see him coming on the road, give orders for the preparation of a feast, and welcome his lost son back before he had said a word? I believe this parable speaks to this issue directly. If we but trust Christ once, we are saved forever. No stipulations or conditions to the salvation. And definitely no pre-destined limitations. I feel that to add any of these extraneous issues to it is to diminish God’s grace.
“Struggle with sin, falling into sin are all a part of being sanctified.”
I could be wrong but I believe that once I’ve accepted Christ as my Savior, I am dead to sin (Rom 6:11, Rom 8:10). Is that not true? Do you believe that our salvation a life-long process?
Thank you for your time.
Luke,
I find that your comment, starting with the 3rd paragraph, is in agreement with the position on eternal security, so I won’t respond to it. If I’ve misunderstood you, please clarify.
However, the following comment doesn’t square: This doctrine of perseverance (as you’ve described it) seems to nullify one of God’s first blessings to mankind: volition. To say that I could lose my salvation, but I won’t because of my predestined elitism is not acknowledging one of our earliest blessings: Free Will.
First of all, you demonstrate your wholesale misunderstanding of the nature of election and predestination by calling it elitism. If someone is chosen because of absolutely nothing that they do (including choosing one thing or the other), there are absolutely no grounds for boasting… no grounds for elitism. By contrast, if I in my fallen state somehow muster up the strength and reason to choose to obey, I do have something to boast about. That puts me in the elite. I chose, and Larry didn’t. I’m among the elite to whom it was given this knowledge to choose Christ. Again, though, if I’ve done absolutely nothing to be accepted by Christ and yet am accepted, I’m bowed low in humility, not puffed up because I’ve been chosen.
Secondly, I’m not quite sure why you see volition as such an inherently ineffably glorious gift. Maybe you could shed some light on that. I will acknowledge, though, that volition is a great gift to those whose nature it is to love and serve God. Such was the case with Adam and Eve. God gave them the ability to choose Him, and their nature was such that it was possible. However, we don’t have such a nature. Our nature is evil, always choosing to hate God by wanting everything but Him. Fallen man doesn’t know what’s best for him, so giving him a free will may actually be an act of violence instead of an act of grace. Consider this analogy to illustrate my point: Your son loves to run in the street. For whatever reason, it’s freeing for him, and he knows no other joy than just running around playing in the street. Whether it be with his toy cars, on his bike with new training wheels, or running around with his friends, he simply loves it. Surely a good father doesn’t quash that joy for his son, does he?
Sure he does! Why? Because playing in the street is dangerous. It’s infinitely more loving for the father, against his son’s will, to grab him by the hand and yank him from running into the street. So it is with our Father and our salvation. As inheritors of Adam’s sin nature, our “free will” is free inasmuch as it acts in accordance with our nature. Our nature means our volition will always be against God. It is extremely loving for God to step in and change our nature, giving us a will that is free to love Him. That changing of nature is regeneration, and is the only way anyone believes (cf. John 10: You don’t believe because you’re not my sheep, not: You’re not my sheep because you don’t believe).
Hope that clarifies.
Mike,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment.
To repspond, I don’t feel that I have a “wholesale misunderstanding of the nature of election and predestination” but I’m sorry if my statements confused you. I do not believe in predestination. We were created with free will, as Adam and Eve clearly demonstrate.
I’m curious to know when you believe we lost our free will and why God never mentions censuring our volition when he casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden? Do you believe that we lost our free will with the Fall? And you believe that we are only capable of choosing sin and sinful choices? And we are saved in spite of the fact that we cannot choose to trust Christ with our salvation? Then why were we given free will in the first place? If we are not free to choose Christ as our Savior, then we are following Him by compulsion? Now please don’t misunderstand me again, I am not saying that I can save myself. Christ did all of the work on the Cross and His work is completed, but I still have to choose to follow Him and trust in the gift freely offered. As John 3:14-15 states like “the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up”. As you well know, God told Moses to “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.”(Num21:8) What I’m saying is that the Israelites still had to choose to look and they would live. As do we. We cannot contribute to our own salvation one iota, but we do have to choose. And in that one nanosecond that we trust Christ as our Savior, we are saved once and forever.
So to answer your question, that is why I see volition as such an “inherently ineffably glorious gift.” Because just as it neccessitated my need for salvation through Adam and Eve, it also enabled my acceptance of the gift that has been offered to me by Jesus. To underestimate the gift of volition, in my eyes, is to underestimate the blessing of being able to ask for a draught of the “living water”.
Finally, no offense, but I don’t think that you fully comprehend our fallen state. You compare our situation with a human father who doesn’t want his child to play in the street, so he grabs his hand and pulls him out of the street. God did nothing of the sort. In fact He lovingly warns us about continuing to play in the street, shows us a much better place that we can play, and holds out His hand to lead us to that better place, but he does not make up our minds for us by pulling us out of danger. To continue your metaphor, we are in fact born into the middle of the street and continue to live there until we get hit by a car or take God’s extended hand and believe His Word.
Thank you for your time.
I’m curious to know when you believe we lost our free will and why God never mentions censuring our volition when he casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden? Do you believe that we lost our free will with the Fall?
I’m not saying we lost our “free will.” I’m saying that our nature changed. Adam had a qualitatively different nature than we have. His was not necessarily sinful. But through his sin, we are all born with a sinful, evil nature. It’s important to realize that our will is free only within the bounds of our nature. A fish’s will is free insofar as it can choose to swim anywhere in the pond. Nothing stops him. But a fish cannot will that he walk on land. It is not within the bounds of his nature to just get up and walk because he feels like it. So are our wills bound to act in accordance with our nature. As a result of the Fall, we lost the ability to choose God because we inherit an inherently sinful nature. To use biblical language, we died with Adam (Rom 5). Dead people can’t choose anything.
And you believe that we are only capable of choosing sin and sinful choices?
Yes. Absolutely. For reasons, I hope, explained above.
And we are saved in spite of the fact that we cannot choose to trust Christ with our salvation?
I’m not sure what you mean by choosing to trust Christ with our salvation. In our fallen state, we can’t choose Christ. Fallen man will never trust Christ with, or for, anything.
Then why were we given free will in the first place?
There are many people who contend that we were not given a “free will” as you’re defining it at all. We were created with our will, our volition, which is free to act within the bounds of our nature. So we can make choices, but we choose only that which are capable of, defined by our nature. I might answer this question more clearly below.
If we are not free to choose Christ as our Savior, then we are following Him by compulsion?
No. And here’s why. Because God perceives fallen man, dead in trespasses and sins, and regenerates the elect. This is sometimes called irresistible grace or an effectual call. He gives new birth to those He means to save. He causes them to be born again (1 Pet 1) and makes them alive (Eph 2). By re-generating fallen man, God gives him a new nature. With this new nature, regenerate man can see God as He truly is, for all the glory and splendor of the Son, and runs to Him willingly, out of no compulsion at all. So we serve God willingly, now having a nature in which our will/volition can (and always will) choose God.
We cannot contribute to our own salvation one iota, but we do have to choose.
This is simply a contradiction. “We don’t do anything.” “We choose.” Choosing is doing something. And according to you it’s on the basis of that thing that we do that our eternal destiny is different than others’. I know you don’t think that you’re saying that. You say it’s on the basis of Christ’s work alone. But allow me to put it to your conscience that your position is not consistent with that. Christ’s work is indeed finished. We don’t “activate” the finished work by our choice. It’s finished. There’s nothing to activate. It’s already activated in eternity past, accomplished in ~30 AD.
Finally, despite your no offense disclaimer, I disagree with your assessment of my understanding of our fallen state. I think you pressed my analogy farther than the ground it was supposed to cover, and are assessing the situation from that. I’m also convinced it is you who are misinformed about man’s nature.
Further, I ask that you search your own conscience and ask yourself honestly if your son was in the street about to be hit by a car, if you’d call to him and hold your hand out, or if you’d run in front of the car, dive, and knock him out of the way, even if it meant your own death.
God most certainly does the latter, because we don’t have the nature to heed His call until He sovereignly and effectually regenerates us.
Where in scripture does it say that we “inherit” sin ? Is it in the DNA ? I continue to read about inherited sin from Adam but I cannot find “inherited” being used. Please give me scripture.
Forgive me, Ray.
Because “all died in Adam” (1Cor 15:22), sin was “imputed” (Rom 5:13). We are imputed a sin nature because of Adam’s fall. Since we all died in Adam (1Cor 15:22, cf. Eph 2:1-5, Col 2:13-14), we cannot respond in faith until we are born again (John 3:3, cf. John 10:26).
2 Tim 2:14
But where does it say inherited ?
“In our fallen state, we can’t choose Christ.”
Where in Scriptures does it specifically say this, Mike? Not figuratively, but explicitly say that “until we are elected and regenerated” that “we can not choose Christ”?
Because I can find quite a few verses where Jesus talks explicitly about believers choosing to follow him and being saved or not choosing and not being saved. One of the simplest and most clear is John 5:39-40: “39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you REFUSE to come to me to have life.” (emphasis added, of course). In another translation it is “you ARE NOT WILLING to come to me..”(emph. added). In this verse, the Holy Spirit and Jesus clearly state that people are choosing not to come to him and be saved.
I stated that:
“We cannot contribute to our own salvation one iota, but we do have to choose.” To which you responded: “This is simply a contradiction. “We don’t do anything.” “We choose.” Choosing is doing something.”
You mis-quoted me. I said that I cannot CONTRIBUTE anything to my salvation. There is nothing that I can add to it. Choosing/trusting is not contributing to it. In a very simplistic example, if I go to a restaurant and choose the penne pasta dish, I am not doing anything or adding anything to the dish that I receive. The dish is offered to me and I did not contribute anything towards it’s production. Jesus’s work is finished and as Matthew 7:8 states, if we knock we will be admitted, that simple. Nothing is said about needing to be elected and regenerated and then being able to knock and then being saved. Of course we don’t “activate the finished work by our choice” but by choosing to knock, we are guaranteed a place at the already-prepared banquet.
You ask me to think “if your son was in the street about to be hit by a car, if you’d call to him and hold your hand out, or if you’d run in front of the car, dive, and knock him out of the way, even if it meant your own death. God most certainly does the latter.” Are you serious? Have we been reading the same book? God watched his creation torture and kill his son(self) and did not step in to stop it. Let’s make no mistake. I don’t join the family of God unti I am cleansed of sin through the salvation freely offered by Jesus Christ. So to say that God jumps in front of “his son” to save him while he is in the road is false and misleading. If I am still in the road, I am still rebelling against God. Why would God impugn his perfect Justice to pull me out of danger before I have been justified by trusting Christ as my Savior?? Were the Israelites saved on Passover simply because they were Israelites? No, they had to ACT. They couldn’t save themselves, but they had to believe that what God said through Moses was the truth and the way to life. As we know from Romans 10:10 it is “with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” Please be careful, Mike.
God bless.
Ray, substitute “we inherit a sinful nature” for “we are imputed a sinful nature.” They both mean the same thing, but if you’re more comfortable with the latter, that’s fine with me.
Luke,
When Jesus, in John 10, says “You do not believe because you are not my sheep,” that communicates something to us. What are the grounds for the sinner’s rejection by God? The sinner’s unbelief. But, what is the cause of the sinner’s unbelief? The answer is that he is not one of Jesus Christ’s sheep. We have to be one of Christ’s sheep chosen by Him in eternity past to believe in time. He does not say, “You are not my sheep because you do not believe.” The passages you cite demonstrate that salvation involves making a choice from the human perspective, but this passage teaches who can and do make that choice and who cannot and do not.
Also, in John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that the prerequisite for salvation is to be born again. Nicodemus asks how that’s possible. Jesus tells him the Spirit (the one by whom God causes us to be born again) is like the wind, that blows where it wishes. Regeneration precedes faith; and those regenerated are done so “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:14). “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom 9:16).
Romans 3 says that there is no one righteous, and that none seek after God. Nobody seeks God, because we have all died in Adam. Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 talk about our being dead in our sins because of the sin nature that was imputed to us because of Adam. What choices can dead men make? None. Dead people can’t respond to anything. The only thing that enables a dead man to choose anything is when life is breathed into him.
Lydia had no hope of believing the gospel message that Paul spoke until “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14).
In Ezekiel 37 there is an allegory of how God breathes life into dry, lifeless bones before they can do anything at all, which pictures our spiritual death and inability to choose/please God until He regenerates us.
I could go on. I hope this has been sufficient.
I’m very disappointed in your reply about the car/street analogy. I find you to be being deliberately disingenuous, and your comment about reading the same book is needlessly inflammatory. This whole time the both of us have been using that analogy with these relationships: Jesus/God is to the father as believers are to the son. Then, for reasons unknown to me, you switch Jesus into the second category. The whole point is that on the cross, God dies to save His people. He doesn’t wait for them to come around. They won’t come around, just like the son in the street won’t heed his father’s call. Isaiah 59 says, “Now the LORD saw, And it was displeasing in His sight that there was no justice. And He saw that there was no man, And was astonished that there was no one to intercede; Then His own arm brought salvation to Him, And His righteousness upheld Him.” There was no one to intercede, so He did it. No one was seeking God, so He went to them. They were dead, so He brought them life. God does not wait around for us to get smart enough to choose Him. He “looked and saw” (anthropomorphism) that we never could. So He ran in the middle of the street, and rescued us by dying for us.
If I am still in the road, I am still rebelling against God.
That’s right. “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. … But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. … For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son…” — Rom 5:6-10. God saves us while we’re still in rebellion. We can’t not be in rebellion before this.
Why would God impugn his perfect Justice to pull me out of danger before I have been justified by trusting Christ as my Savior?
Here is another demonstration of a lack of understanding of justice. It is not unjust for God to save sinners who are still rebellious because God imputes to that sinner the righteousness of Christ and imputes the sinner’s sin to Christ. Then, on the cross, the wrath of God against that sinner’s sin is fully exercised in Christ, so that Christ’s death is equal payment as the sinner’s eternal damnation. Justice is not abrogated. By the doctrines of imputation and penal substitutionary atonement, a Holy God saves sinners in the depth of their depravity in rebellion without becoming less holy. See 2 Corinthians 5:21 as well as Isaiah 53:4-6.
And I’ll say this one more time, so please get it here. Your example of the Israelites needing to act is a good one. But as I keep saying, what makes them able to act OR what keeps them from acting? It is their nature. If they have been born again by the sovereign grace of God (John 1, 3, 10; Ezek 37; Eph 2; Col 2), they act in accordance with righteousness because God has willed it so. If they are yet dead in their trespasses and sins they cannot choose God and so they won’t.
I ask you, if you’re still serious about having a conversation in which you want to learn as well as speak, to deal with what I’m actually saying instead of what you tell me I’m saying.
Mike,
It seems like we have a pretty signifigant, linguistic disconnect and I’m just going to have to respectfully disagree with your theories.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts.
Luke,
I understand.
However, Luke and Ray, I’d like to invite you both to check out an upcoming series of posts on the heart these very issues over at PyroManiacs. The first post is today’s, and will open up into a series considering the following four things:
1. In what sense is depravity total?
2. How can we be held responsible for our own inability?
3. How did we inherit Adam’s sinfulness?
4. Is there an antidote for human depravity?
Please do stop by.
Mike ,
I am not comfortable with either one. Tell me where it is taught that every baby is born a sinner. If that is true then should we baptize every baby or how will they confess , or repent and of what sins and how are they capable of belief and obeying the gospel ?
Ray,
Are you insinuating that you do not believe that ALL have sinned?
Daniel ,
No. I am asking are we all born sinners ? Is it at the time of conception , right at the moment a baby is born or when are we declared sinners ? If every baby is born with inherited sin then what is the condition of a baby that dies ? I am still trying to understand inherited sin.
When is a person accountable for sin ?
Ray,
If a newborn has not sinned, then not all have sinned. But we know that all have sinned.
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
The question here is: does God elect babies to heaven (even those who die before they were born)?
You asked, “When is a person accountable for sin ?”
We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.
David was only lamenting his own sin. Psalm 51 :5 is not a universal statement. He did not say ” we ” . David was only crying out because of his won sin and was saying that he consideded himslf such a great sinner. He was not speaking concerning the sins of every person.
Ray,
Do you believe that there is ever a time when we are not accountable for sin?
Do you believe that we are not born sinners?
Again, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.
Ray,
To answer your question, I’d like to begin by highlighting something Daniel said, and then I’ll move on to the Scriptural support for original sin: “We are not sinful because we sin; we sin because we are sinful.”
“Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” – Ephesians 2:3 says that we were, by nature, “before they had done anything good or bad” (Rom 9:11), children of wrath. That is destined for and deserving of divine judgment because of our inherent sinfulness in Adam.
“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” – Romans 5:14 says that though those hadn’t sinned like Adam, death still reigned over them because of their sinfulness.
“So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.” – Romans 5:18 says that through one transgression, that is, Adam’s sin, there resulted condemnation to all men. That means there was a sentence of judgment delivered on all men as a collective body because of Adam’s sin. God imputes the guilt and responsibility of Adam’s sin to the entire human race.
“For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.” – Romans 5:19 makes a very similar point, and also certifies the qualification both Daniel and I made above. Through the sin of Adam, we were all made sinners. We were not made sinners because of the first sin that we committed. We were made sinners because of Adam’s sin — because of the fall of man.
So, that’s where it’s taught that every baby is born a sinner.
Though that’s true, I don’t suggest we baptize any babies, let alone every baby. I’m not sure where you came up with that.
As to where infants go when they die, I’m uncertain what the Bible teaches. The Bible certainly teaches that they’re sinful, and so God certainly has the right to punish them for that. God is of purer eyes to behold even the inherent evil in infants (cf. Hab 1:13). But, as others have suggested, He may choose, in His electing purpose according to all His good pleasure, to elect infants to salvation. This squares with David’s thought of “going to” his child who died. In my estimation, this question will never be answered definitively.
I do, though, think it borders on absurd to suggest that David was only speaking of himself about being sinful in his mother’s womb, especially in light of these passages I’ve quoted here, but also simply in the context of that passage. Did David somehow out-sin other people? Did God make only David inherit the sin of Adam? Should Romans 5:18-19 read, “there resulted codemnation to David” or “to one man, that is David,” and “through the one man’s disobedience one was made a sinner, that is David”? I should hope you say no. David was expressing a universal reality that he felt personally.
Finally, I want you to recognize that you’re flirting with what the early church condemned as heresy in the late 300s: the idea of the absence of original sin, or that every baby is not born a sinner. I think you’re being consistent with your positions, because your position on soteriology requires you to hold this position, if you’re logically consistent. But I urge you to abandon them both as you pore over these passages in meditation.
Mike
You also might want to abandon something you said in the last post, “As to where infants go when they die, I’m uncertain what the Bible teaches… But, as others have suggested, He may choose, in His electing purpose according to all His good pleasure, to elect infants to salvation.”
I would imagine you agree with Calvinists about election being preordained, guaranteed to happen, and postive results in the elect being born again and saved and that there is no way that the elect can fall away. So, how can you say that the possible answer to the infant question is that God may choose to elect them? Which ones? All infants? If all infants, then everyone would be elect, since no one can later become non-elect. If only some babies are elect, what about the others? This position has then again not solved the emotional issue about what happens to babies who die. If some babies are elect, then are they instantly born again, when they are born physically, because some die soon afterwards? I have read Calvinists say that the elect are born again by the Spirit and then, with the new nature, they respond to the calling. How can a baby, respond and accept Christ?
Thanks.
Mike F,
As I said, I’m uncertain, and have committed to using words like “may” or “might” to not speak dogmatically about something that I can’t support biblically. So be careful about the severity with which you present these ideas.
Also, I’m not saying God chooses to elect all infants until a certain point. That’s a strawman if I’ve ever seen one. What I would be saying if I were arguing that position was that, as God has ordained the days of everyone, He has ordained the days of infants who die. Not only ordaining their earthly life, He ordains their spiritual life. So, perhaps it is the case that God elects to save all the babies He ordains to die before childhood/adulthood. That would not be inconsistent with Calvinist soteriology as I understand it.
As to how a baby can respond and accept Christ, I don’t know. But it’s just as much of a mystery to me how a dead man (Eph 2:1) can respond and accept Christ (that is, through regeneration). So if God can regenerate dead people (Eph 2:1ff) and give them a heart to receive His Son, I’m certainly not willing to say He can’t do that with baby dead people.
Mike ,
None of the passages you gave me teaches that we are born with inherited sin. Yes sin came into the world through Adam but the Roman passages do not say inherit or imputed.
David only speaks of his sin and does not make a universal statement. David was only commenting on his sin. There is nothing universal in the verse.
Mike,
I will throw out an idea for you to ponder. It is based on a number of Bible concepts and teachings and is the best I have been able to come up with as to the “babies”.
When Adam sinned, he died spiritually. Throughout the OT, since Adam, everyone was born spiritually dead, because their father Adam was and he cannot birth a nature he does not have. The Bible seems to indiate that if Adam had not sinned, his offspring would have also been born spiritually alive.
I do not believe that all babies that die, go to heaven. There does not seem to be any support for that in scriptue. But, since Jesus died on the cross, believers now have the Holy Spirit living in them giving them spiritual life (born again). So, my conclusion is that babies born into families with a Christian father are covered by that just as would have been babies in the OT if Adam had not sinned. A Christian father has spiritual life and can pass that nature onto his children. As the child grows, it will depend on what that child believes as to their future spiritual state.
Ray,
If every baby is born without sin or a sin nature, then there is the possibility that one could live a sinless life. If we are born without sin do we need salvation? If we could stay without sin, wouldn’t we be just like Christ? He that sayeth He hath no sin is a liar. If babies are born without sin, then they are in the same perfect condition as Adam before he sinned. If works can keep us sinless, then salvation is of works.
I find it hard to believe that David was the only person born in sin. If David was born in sin, that is at least one person born with a sin nature.
What do you think the Bible means when it says that ALL have sinned? Do you not believe that ALL have sinned? I hate to put this is such severe terms, but this belief that we are born sinless is nothing short of heresy. There is none righteous, NO NOT ONE.
Mike F,
There is only one that can give spiritual life, and that is the Holy Spirit. A sinful man, even a spiritually alive man, cannot give spiritual life. Spiritual life comes when the Holy Spirit indwells a person. No man can give this indwelling.
Daniel ,
And I believe it is heresy to believe that the Psalm 51 passage teaches universal inherited sin. It is NOT in the text. it is used to teach universal inherited sin by those who want to teach that all babies are born sinners , which cannot be supported by scripture but only human logic.
Ray,
Let’s assume for a minute that Psalm 51 doesn’t teach universal inherited sin. What about “for ALL have sinned” and “there is none righteous, NO NOT ONE”? Can you provide scripture to support your view?
Ray,
It’s not a legitimate move in a discussion to just say, “Nope, try again.” If you want to discount my biblical support and/or my reasoning, deal with what I wrote. I believe that there is more than enough reason to conclude original sin from the passages I’ve quoted by anyone not bringing biases to the text.
With the Ps 51 comment, again, all you’re doing is talking past me. “David meant this.” “No he didn’t… ” “Yes he did!” Doesn’t cut it.
The fact that you condemn as heretics all those who understand Psalm 51 to have implications for the entire human race only further aligns you with Pelagius, who himself was condemned by the church yet condemned all those who condemned him. It’s like the Council of Carthage (418) all over again.
Mike F, your reasoning would require that all babies born to Christian parents are saved, whether they live or die early. This obviously is not the case. Like Daniel said, only God can impart spiritual life, not those who have been made alive.
Daniel,
I know what you are saying. As I tried to explain, that concept is the best I can come up with, in dealing with the issue of a baby that dies. All of us would like to think that they all go to heaven, but that is an emotional desire. My idea is based on the idea as to what Cain and Able would have been like without the fall. I believe the implication is that they would have been born with the same nature as their father, Adam; since, after he died spiritually, they were born after that nature. If that is true, then could it be possible that this is God’s way of saving children born into Christian families? Jesus told the one man, believe and you and your family will be saved. There seems to be something to the spiritual headship of the man of the house. Again, it is the best I came up with, but I agree, it may be off base.
Mike,
You said, “Mike F, your reasoning would require that all babies born to Christian parents are saved, whether they live or die early. This obviously is not the case.”
I have always wondered about the “age of accountablity” teaching and did not find support for it in the Bible. But, as we would all like to think; that your baby would be in heaven, waiting for you, if it died; this is as close as I could come up with because it does have some basis from scripture principles.
Prior to this, you said (and this is what I was responding to): “So, perhaps it is the case that God elects to save all the babies He ordains to die before childhood/adulthood.”
So, if God can elect to save all the Babies He ordains to die; even though they have not believed and have not heard the Gospel, have not been born again (which is when the Holy Spirit comes into them to give them spiritual life); is OK with your doctrine; then why is it such a stretch to think that He could choose to do this with babies born to a Christian father by way of imparting the spiritual nature passed down from the father with the same spiritual nature, just as it would have been in Genesis with Adam, had he not lost his spiritual life?
Just my thoughts…
Mike F,
I commend you for your openness.
Before Jacob and Esau were born, God had chosen one and rejected the other. If both had died early, I believe that Jacob would have been in heaven and Esau in hell. This is hard to accept, especially for those of an Armenian belief of salvation, because neither baby had a chance to accept or refuse. However, this shows all the more how that salvation is of God’s choosing, not ours.
As to Christ telling the man to believe and He would be saved with His household, could you give me the reference for that? I know what verse you are talking about, but I can’t seem to find it. Thanks.
Daniel,
I had that wrong, it was Paul in Acts 16:31. He said it to the guard at the prison, I believe.
The Jacob and Esau example is a good one.
Again, an emotional argument, it just seems like there must be some plan God has whereby babies or at least some would be saved. The above is the only thing I could come up with that was at least based on concepts from the Bible. Even the verse in Acts could be a stretch to apply it to this situation as his kids could already be alive…
Any ideas on this subject?
Mike and Daniel ,
I have provided enough scripture to state what I believe. I am now being considered a heretic for what I believe. No use in going on with the discussion. I am not Pelagaian. I am a Christian and I have tried to state my views to the best of my ability. I cannot see inherited sin in any of the passages you have given. Tt has been a good discussion.
Ray,
You said, “I have provided enough scripture to state what I believe.”
You have not quoted one verse in defense of your view on this entire thread. I would be careful about holding to a view not stated in scripture, even if it ISN’T stated as wrong in the scripture. Actually, I wouldn’t just be careful, I wouldn’t do it. If man is basically good, then why this need for a savior? If man has the ability to live a sinless life, then not ALL have sinned. If a baby does not already have a sin nature, then not ALL have fallen short of the glory of God.
Could you answer this question: What about “for ALL have sinned” and “there is none righteous, NO NOT ONE”? If all does not mean all, then what does it mean?
Daniel ,
I have on numerous times stated that Jesus is our savior who died for our sins. All I have said about inherited sin is to quote me the verses that teach at birth that all babies inherit sin. You have yet to give me one definitive verse to teach it. Only implied or to accomodate your theology that if you believe in total deparavity , etc. , then I can see whwy you teach such. We disagree on Psalm 51 and will continue to disagree until you can show me in scripture where Psalm 51 is universal.In Psalm 51 , not some other passage. Where is the “we” or “all” in the passage. It is not there. The passages in Romans speak of sin coming into the world and yes all have sinned but those do not speak about inherited sin. Jesus once said that the children make up the kingdom of heaven. Mtt. 19 :14 . How can that be if they are condemned to hell sinners at the time of their birth ? What sins have they committed ? I have asked you , is it at the point of conception , is it in the DNA or where ? You have asked me for scriptures but you are the one who says it is inherited. Not me. The burden is with you giving the verses that teach that every baby is born with an inherited sin and is totally depraved and bound for hell at the time of birth. If you beleive that Psalm 51 and the passages from Roamns teach inherited sin, then so be it for you. I disagree.
Ray,
I never said that babies are “bound for hell sinners”. That is a straw man if I ever saw one.
The burden is also upon YOU, my friend, because you are to base ALL, and I repeat, ALL of your views of life on scripture. Therefore, if you are unwilling (or unable) to show one verse (even impied) in defense of your view, then you should be just as unwilling to hold to that view. For instance: the Bible never once mentions smoking, therefore smoking must be okay. If the Bible doesn’t say that it is wrong then it must be right, right?
I will respond furthur later.
Daniel ,
I have given several scriptureS and have commented on the scriptures you have given. About the babies going to hell: I nevEr said you said that but that is the direction the teaching on inherited sin arrives. It s not me that is holding to the position of inherited sin , so , no I cannot come up with a scripture to support inherited sin.
We have gone a long time on thIS and we will still disagree. It has been a good discussion.
Daniel ,
Never said it is what you said, just the ultimate conclusion to inherited sin. If inherited sin is right then every baby born is lost and a candidate for hell. Go to a nursery of new born babies in a major city hospital and observe the babies. Are they all lost ? Would anyone be willing to announce that to each parent ? If every baby is lost ,then something needs to be done to secure their salvation. That is why some advocate infant sprinkling or baptism. I beleive they are secure since Jesus said they make up the kingdom of heaven and they have no knowledge of the law and sin. All I am saying , is that is where inherited sin arrives. No , I do not have a scripture to endorse inherited sin because I cannot find one. The Psalm 51 passage we have covered. The verses in Romans do not say anything about inherited , imputed or whatever word that is used. Yes all have sinned but that does not teach inherited sin, that at birth every child is tainted with sin. Call it a straw man if you like but this is where I stand. I cannot find the scriptures that teach inheried sin. It is not my burden since I do not advocate inherited sin. And in this post I have mentioned several passages .
Ray,
I did not ask you to show verses that support my view, I asked you to show verses that support your view, which you have NOT done.
With your view of salvation (it is up to us to accept Christ, so salvation is our responsibility) you must believe that all babies go to hell, since not one of them has accepted Christ.
I believe that God chooses some babies and not others, just like any other men. Remember Jacob and Esau?
Inherited sin, and thence a sin nature, does not mean that all babies go to hell. This is NOT a necessary conclusion. At this moment, I have a sin nature. I am saved, and by God’s grace have a new nature, but I still have a sin nature. Am I doomed to hell just because I have a sin nature? When did I get this sin nature if not at birth?
You said, “I have given several scriptureS”
I have not seen them. It may just be me, so could you state them again?
Daniel ,
I will say it again. It is not up to me to prove by scripture about inherited sin. I already said to you in my last post about the salvation of a baby and have already given you Jesus and His words. But the burden of the proof is not with me. I do not believe in inherited sin because I do not believe it is taught in scripture. One of the reasons why I am not going too go lnog now is because of being moderated. Too bad . I thought this blog was interested in a free discussion about scriptures.
Ray,
I am surprised to hear you refuse to support your view with scripture. This is not a Biblical attitude. We are to prove ALL things. If I believed that babies did not have inherited sin, I would need to be able to support that view with scripture. I cannot believe anything unless it is supported by scripture. To say that it is not my responsibility to support my view with scripture is dangerous. The Bereans were noble because the searched the scriptures to see if these things were so. You should be willing to do the same. If you are not, then this discussion is over, for it is useless to debate with a man who does not feel a need to base his views on scripture.
Jesus words about “of such is the kingdom of heaven” were to say (like He said before) that Christians need to have a childlike faith. Not childlike as in “immature”, but childlike as in the faith that a child has in his father. Children believe that their father hung the moon. He is the greatest person that there ever was. This is a childlike faith, and this is what Christ was saying. It is a misinterpretation to say that it means that heaven will be filled with children. Heaven will be filled with those who have a childlike faith in God as their father.
The following is a section from Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology.
“Paul explains the effects of Adam’s sin in the following way: “Therefore…sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12). The context shows that Paul is not talking about actual sins that people commit every day of their lives, for the entire paragraph (Rom. 5:12-21) is taken up with the comparison between Adam and Christ. And when Paul says, “so [Gk. "houtos" "thus in this way"; that is, through Adam's sin] death spread to all men because all mean sinned,” he is saying that through the sin of Adam “all men sinned. Also see Rom. 5:8, :18-19. If you believe that Adam did not represent all men and thus did not imput sin to all men, then you must also believe that Christ did not represent us and thus did not imput His righteousness to us. Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.”
1) Only those who are saved will go to heaven, so if all babies go to heaven, then all babies are saved. 2) One can only be saved through Christ’s death, so Christ must have paid the penalty for all babies. 3)Christ only died for sinners, so all babies must be sinners. Taking only your view, this is the conclusion: all babies are sinners, unless you disagree with one or more parts of the process I just described. If so, please show me which part(s) you disagree with 1, 2, or 3.
If we believe that salvation is up to us to accept, then we must accept the fact that since no baby is able to accept, then all babies go to hell. However, since salvation cannot be based on their own merits, or on the basis of their own righteousness, innocence, or acceptance; it must be entirely on the basis of Christ’s redemptive work and regeneration by the work of the Holy Spirit.
Ray,
I have had several of my postings held up for moderation, over the past few weeks. Within a few hours or a day, every one of them were posted. I do not think there is any censorship being done, it just seems like some things may trigger the moderation and I am not sure what they may be.
Mike F. ,
Thank you for your words. I hope what you say is true. My only intent is an open discussion of the word of God.
Cocnerning infants , I find it very hard to conclude from scripture that some infants will be suffering in the flames of eternal hell because of a man made doctrine of
unconditional particular election. I am convinced election is corporate. The whosoever who choose Jesus are the predestined to be the elect. It is those who are in Christ that have all the spiritual blessings , Eph. 1 : 3 . Which includes being the elect , the church at Ephesus that Paul writes to , inspired of the Holy Spirit. They are the ones old enough to do what is involved in the free choice to be in Christ. Old enough to know about law , sin , the atonement, etc.
Also Jesus said the children make up the kingdom of heaven and Jesus once told his apostles that unless they became like children they would not enter the kingdom of heaven. Luke 18 : 16 and Matt. 18 : 3. An infant that dies is safe. Saved. Eternally , not just the particular elect.
Ray,
Read my comment on 25 2:03.
Your interpretation of Luke 18:16 and Matthew 18:3 is simply astounding. When Christ says “of such is the kingdom of heaven” He is saying that unless you humble yourselves as a little child. Here is a clip from Gill’s commentary.
“the Arabic renders it, “as this child”; that is, unless ye learn to entertain an humble, and modest opinion of yourselves, are not envious at one another, and drop all contentions about primacy and pre-eminence, and all your ambitious views of one being greater than another, in a vainly expected temporal kingdom; things which are not to be found in little children, though not free from sin in other respects,”
You said, “Cocnerning infants , I find it very hard to conclude from scripture that some infants will be suffering in the flames of eternal hell because of a man made doctrine of unconditional particular election.”
There is nothing man-made about it. When Paul says that salvation is not obtained by him who wills, but of God who chooses to show mercy, then this is a biblical doctrine.
You said, “The whosoever who choose Jesus are the predestined to be the elect.”
We are not the elect because we are saved, we are saved because we are the elect. Election means that God chose who would be saved before the foundation of the world. That is the only definition of election, so election cannot be corporate.
Unless my faith is like that of a little child (a humble and believing faith) then I will not enter the kingdom of God. But wait, an infant cannot have faith in God, so Jesus cannot be commending a child’s faith in God. He must be commending the child’s faith in general. A child will believe whatever you tell him. This is a good attitude to have toward scripture.
In order to believe what you believe about babies and salvation, you must disagree with one of the following points.
1) Only those who are saved will go to heaven. 2) One can only be saved through Christ’s death. 3) Christ only died for sinners.
Let’s assume that all babies go to heaven. If 1) is true then all babies must have been saved. If all babies are saved and 2) is true, then they must all have been saved through the blood of Christ. If all babies are saved through Christ’s death and 3) is true, then all babies are sinners. But you believe that babies are not sinners, so which point do you disagree with, 1 2 or 3?
Daniel ,
Call it astounding but it is true. I understand the point about humility but Jesus is also talking about the innocence of children. For sure it is the meaning in Luke 18 : 16.
I am not sure what you mean or want in your last post. It really does not matter. I have already said to you Jesus is our Savior. My point has been in this part of the discussion that inherited sin is not found in scripture. The babies are safe.
Ray,
The word “imputed” is used in Romans 5:13.
I have a question for you at this point. It may seem redundant, because I think you’ve answered it indirectly. But I’m wondering if you’ll say it outright.
The question is: Do you deny the doctrine of original sin?
Mike ,
Does imputed mean the same as inerited from birth ?
I am not trying to avoid but how do you define original sin ? If you mean the first sin , then of course but if you mean inherited , then all I am saying is that I cannot find the passage that says every child born into the world is tainted with sin . And I keep wondering if that is true then does that mean some children when born into this world are at birth elected to salvation and some are condemned to hell , no matter what ? That to me is where inherited sin brings you.
Ray,
You asked, “And I keep wondering if that is true then does that mean some children when born into this world are at birth elected to salvation and some are condemned to hell , no matter what ?”
Not at birth; this was done before the foundation of the world. Ray, do you have any children? If so, can you honestly say that they were without sin?
You said, “I understand the point about humility but Jesus is also talking about the innocence of children.”
Here are the verses: Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Where in these verses does it say that children are without sin? Can you give me just one verse that says that children are without sin? If there is one child that has not sinned, then Rom. 3:23 is false. If there is one child that is righteous, then Rom. 3:10 is false.
Would you answer me on which point you disagree with? In order to believe the way you do, you must deny one of these points.
1) Only those who are saved will go to heaven. 2) One can only be saved through Christ’s death. 3) Christ only died for sinners.
If Christ died for all babies, then all babies are sinners, because Christ only died for sinners. Which one do you disagree with?
Ray,
(Don’t let Daniel or Mike read this!)
I believe that it was my first post on this article that explained, briefly, a possible theory that I have concerning the subject of the babies. I was raised being told that all babies go to heaven. I have always heard people say about a baby who dies that it is in heaven with Jesus. I believe that that is exactly what we want to believe happens and would have trouble with any other answer, but it seems to be an emotional argument. At some point, I tried to find scripture to support that stance. I was unable to find it in scripture. I did find several verses that seem to indicate that “all have sinned”, “there is none righteous”, etc.
I believe that when Adam sinned, the Fall, caused Adam to die spiritually. The nature of spiritual death was passed on from generation to generation throughout the Old Testament. Romans seems to teach that death passed onto all men because of Adam. (Just a side note: when Lot and his family were saved out of town prior to destruction and judgement, the babies in those two towns were destroyed along with the adults.)
When Jesus died and sent the Holy Spirit, those who are born again now have the spiritual life, alive in them. My theory is that since spiritual death was literally passed down to future generations, why can’t spiritual life be passed down to our next generation, from a born again parent? (I believe that is what the case would have been if Adam had not sinned.) I do not believe that this means that all of our children become Christians and do not have to accept Jesus just as we did, but I wonder if this may be a way that God protects our babies until they are old enough to understand the gospel and sin. I can’t prove it, but it makes some sense to me.
I found a verse that may go along with this: Rom. 7:9 “I was once alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died.” Could this be applied to the babies who have no concept of sin, the law, Jesus, etc? When the child reached the maturity to be able to understand the different concepts and the gospel, could that be when they are held accountable, personally; and before that, could they be “alive” apart from the law?
Just my thoughts…
Mike F
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
If point 1 is true, then according to your view, all babies are saved. If point 2 is true, then according to your view, all babies are saved through the death of Christ. If point 3 is true, then according to your view, all babies are sinners. But you do not believe that babies are sinners, so you MUST disagree with one or more of these points, because if all of them are true, then all babies are sinners (at least all the ones that Christ died for). So which point(s) do you disagree with.
Daniel , I have answered you. We disagree.
Ray,
You have not answered which of the 3 points you disagree with. For you to believe the way you do, it is necessary to disagree with at least one of those point, so which do you disagree with? You have not answered this question.
Daniel ,
I have answered you with scripture . I have said I do not agree with inherited sin. If you do not agree with what Jesus said as being a statement about their innocence ( children,infants ), ok .That is your free decision. I believe it is very clear when He says they make up the kingdom of heaven. We can go on for a long time but I am not convinced that there is one scripture or many that teach the universal inherited sin of all babies. I do not know how else to state it. Also , maybe I am just too dumb or maybe I am one of the non-elect but your questions are too hard to understand.
Ray,
You said, “I have answered you with scripture…I believe it is very clear when He says they make up the kingdom of heaven.”
You have not answered with scripture that supports your point. When Christ said “of such is the kingdom of heaven” He was not saying that heaven would be filled with children, He was supporting the point that He had just made. This is what that passage was saying:
Unless you humble yourself as a little child you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Forbid them not for of such “those who are humble like them” is the kingdom of heaven.
If this passage was meant to teach the disciples a lesson in humility by using a child as an example, then why would Christ change the subject to inform them that heaven would be filled with children? That would not be a logical interpretation.
For you to believe that all infants that die go to heaven, you must deny one of the 3 points. Either you deny 1) Only those who are saved will go to heaven 2) One can only be saved through Christ’s death or 3) Christ only died for sinners. If all of these are true, then all babies are sinners. Since you do not believe what these 3 point support, you must deny at least one of these points. I am just waiting to hear which one you deny. It is not a very hard question. I will try to put it more clearly.
1) Do you deny that only those who are saved will go to heaven?
2) Do you deny that a man can only be saved through Christ’s death?
3) Do you deny that Christ only died for sinners?
Just tell me whether you agree or disagree with each. Yes, I deny it; or No, I do not deny it. Your belief requires that you deny at least one of these, so which is it?
Daniel ,
I will say it again : I have answered but you do not agree about the truth from Jesus and the security of children. We will continue to disagree on that and that the Bible teaches inherited sin. Your questions have been answered throughout this discussion. Also , again , since I do not beleive in inherited sin , it is not my burden to prove it. And again , Jesus does teach about humility and the innocence of children. That is the way I see it , you do not . We disagree.
Ray,
Below is what I mean by original sin. Do you agree with this? If not, which part? In answering which part, please interact specifically with the Scriptures referenced in each part.
I know this may seem tiresome and laborious, but I believe we are differing on an essential doctrine of the nature of man, the nature of sin, and therefore the nature of the saving grace of God. To get this wrong is not only to “agree to disagree.” It is to get God wrong. I believe it would be the cruelest thing imaginable to pretend this is not of foremost importance. I hope you understand the severity of this discussion and my desire (along with Daniel’s as well, I presume) to see you built strong in grace and truth and not ignorant of these things.
——
1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
( Genesis 2:16, 17; Genesis 3:12,13; 2 Corinthians 11:3 )
2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
( Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12, etc; Titus 1:15; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-19 )
3. They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.
( Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45, 49; Psalms 51:5; Job 14:4; Ephesians 2:3; Romans 6:20 Romans 5:12; Hebrews 2:14, 15; 1 Thessalonians 1:10 )
4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
( Romans 8:7; Colossians 1:21; James 1:14, 15; Matthew 15:19 )
5. The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
( Romans 7:18,23; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8; Romans 7:23-25; Galatians 5:17 )
——-
Ray,
You said, “I will say it again : I have answered but you do not agree about the truth from Jesus and the security of children.”
This does not tell me which point you disagree with. You have not told me which point you disagree with. I am beginning to think that you are avoiding answering this question. Just tell me if you agree on each of the 3 points. I doesn’t really matter to me if you have answered already, because if you have, I haven’t seen it, so could you please answer again?
You said, “Also , again , since I do not beleive in inherited sin , it is not my burden to prove it.”
I never said it was your burden to prove inherited sin, I said it was your burden to prove YOUR view, and it is. You have a responsibility to base your beliefs on scripture, and to be able to give a scriptural answer for why you believe what you believe.
You said, “And again , Jesus does teach about humility and the innocence of children.”
Jesus teaches about the humility of children, but NEVER the innocence. Show me a verse where Christ says that children are innocent of sin. Show me a verse anywhere that says that ANYONE is sinless. If you can show me such a verse, I will show you a contradictory Bible, because the Bible says that if someone says that they have no sin, they make God a liar. If you say that someone else has no sin, you also make God a liar.
Please answer the 3 points question (even if you already have).
Daniel ,
I have told you several times that I disagree with you about inherited sin. I have said that chilren at birth are innocent and have given you the scriptures. You know I have, you just disagree. I have told you that Jesus has died for our sins. I have not avoided speaking to the key issue about inherited sin.
And , Daniel , you do not need to quote what I have said each time . I do know what I have written. But if you must , ok. You know the end result. We very strongly disagree on all babies being born with sin inherited from Adam. You have given me scripture you believe teach it. I do not agree that they do. It is as simple as that.
Ray,
The reason that I quote what you said is so that you know specifically what I am responding to.
You have not given me a single scripture that says that children are innocent at birth. You gave me 2 that said of such is the kingdom of heaven (even though Christ was talking about humility, not the actual filling of heaven). However, you have done nothing to answer the verses that I have shared with you. You just keep saying that we disagree. I could have told you that, but that is not a legitimate argument against those verses.
AGAIN you refuse to answer my 3 points question. Why will you not answer it? It is important that you do so, because each of those points are central to the doctrine of salvation. So if you deny one or more of them, then you have undermined the whole doctrine. But you do deny at least one of them, because you believe that babies are not sinners. Please answer this question. Also, please attempt to respond to the verses that I have shared (not just by saying we disagree). Start with this one.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Daniel ,
You keep saying I have not responded with scripture and I say I have. I have on several posts already said Rom. 5 : 12 does not say anything about inherited sin. I have already said Jesus died for our sins. I have given you verses that say that infants are innocent. You say they do not , just as I say Rom 5 : 12 does not teach inherited sin. I have answered your questions in this blog several times , just not in your question form. We disagree about inherited sin and the innocence of infants. I do not know what else to say. It is not my burden to prove anything about inherited sin because I cannot find a scripture that supports the doctrine and especailly since I am not trying to accomodate Calvinistic dostrine , which I reject. Maninly because the human explanations are not in harmony with scripture.That is where I stand .
Ray,
Again, you have NOT given me a single verse that teaches that children or anyone else is innocent of sin, but I have shown you many verses (which you have NOT responded to exegetically) that say that NO ONE is innocent of sin.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
I challenge you to show me a verse that says that children are sinless (Even if you already have, show me again).
Answer me yes or no one the following questions PLEASE.
1) Do you believe that only those who are saved will go to heaven?
2) Do you believe that a man can ONLY be saved through Christ’s death?
3) Do you believe that Christ only died for sinners?
Just yes or no would be sufficient.
Daniel ,
I already have.
Ray,
Would you deal with my response on whether you accept or reject the doctrine of original sin?
Ray,
I have no clue as to which of the 3 points you deny. I know that you do not believe in inherited sin, but I need to know which point you deny to get to this point. Please tell me even if you have already.
Daniel ,
Not one of the verses you gave me said that each person who is born , is born with sin inherited from Adam. Sin came into the world through Adam and Eve but not one verse says we inherit it . Not one. But if you are trying to see everything through Calvinism then inherited sin becomes necessary to combine with all the points of Calvinism. Ezek 18 : 19 – 20 teaches that the child will not be guilty of the sins of the father. We must all be judged on what each has done 2 Cor . 5 : 10 and a large number of verses that teaches each will be judged on an individual basis. Also , read all of Psalm 58 and realize first , that it is Hebrew poetry , and is an imprecatory Psalm.But it does not teach imputed or inherited sin that comes due to being born. Where is it , is it in the DNA or where ? It is not taught. The whole 5th chapter of Romans speaks to the glory of grace through Jesus in contrast to the sin in the world ; disobedience through choice not an arbitary robotic decision. Just as Adam and Eve had choice, free will , so it is given to each person. We keep getting back to whosoever will and free choice and election being corporate ; the whosoever will who accept Jesus are the elect and they are the chosen, the predestined.
Mike ,
I asked you to tell me what you mean by original sin, in your definition ? Only then can I answer you .
Daniel ,
Psalm 58 speaks about the wicked and the righteous and the righteous want vengence against the wicked. Verse 3 does not say every person born is wicked. It does not teach universal inherited sin. If it does then this whole discussion has really become very confusing. If verse 3 only mentions the wicked , then that must mean-if you take the inherited sin position- some are born sinners and some are not since the Psalm shows a difference between the wicked and the righteous. Then some are born safe and secure and some are born lost , if there is sin at the time of birth. I keep wondering why a baby is to be held accountable for the sin of Adam since the baby cannot comprehend sin .
Ray,
Why are you dancing like this? What kind of burden is it that you’re trying to lay upon this discussion by saying that I have to construct my own definition of things? These antics that you’re pulling, both with me and with Daniel, reflect the weakness of your position.
Let’s keep this simple.
I accept whole-heartedly what is written there concerning sin and the nature of man. (And in fact, I’ve said most of that in my own words in the foregoing discussion.)
Do you, or do you not, whole-heartedly accept what is written there concerning sin and the nature of man?
If you do not, what do you reject?
In answering why you reject what you reject, please interact specifically and exegetically with the Scriptures referenced there, demonstrating why you feel that they are inadequate to support the position they claim to support.
Just as Adam and Eve had choice, free will , so it is given to each person.
So what happened in the Fall? When Adam and Eve sinned, what did that do to humanity?
Mike ,
Not dancing. Just asking for a defintion. Why will you not give me one ?
Mike ,
Sin came into the world but I am still waiting on the scripture that teaches that at birth a baby is held accountable for the sin of Adam .
I gave you a definition Ray. It’s there, spelled out, nice and clear, step by step, with Scripture. Stop acting like a child and answer the question.
And stop taking the discussion where you want to take it and just answer the questions asked. Your answer as to what happened in the Fall was that sin came into the world. What does that mean? Did it change human nature in any way?
Ray,
Ezek 18:19-20 teaches that a son will not be guilty of the sins of his father. I agree. If my father did something sinful, I would not be punished for that. Inheriting a sinful nature from Adam is not the same as being punished for the sins of my father.
You said, “Not one of the verses you gave me said that each person who is born , is born with sin inherited from Adam.”
Every one of the verses that I gave you said that ALL have sinned and there is NONE righteous NO NOT ONE. This means that ALL have sinned. From the elderly to the infant, ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
As far as Psalm 58, I never said that this chapter has anything to do with inherited sin. Please deal with the verses that I have mentioned (just dismissing a verse is not dealing with it).
The doctrine of inherited sin is not a Calvinistic teaching. Calvin believed that, but this doctrine is central to the belief that salvation is by grace alone, not just Calvinism.
You STILL have not answered my three points. Ignoring my points, questions, and verses is not a good way to convince me of the veracity of your belief. In fact, it is getting quite agravating. You just keep saying “I already have”. That is not an acceptable answer to my question. Please answer that question.
Ray,
If you’ve replied before this comment I haven’t seen it, yet. So read this as if I haven’t.
First, I’m sorry for my last comment. I was impatient and unloving. I sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness. I will, once again, as you’ve asked, define original sin with my own words (and from Scripture), and hope to show you its truth.
Adam and Eve were created with a nature that included the ability to choose to obey God unto life or choose to disobey God unto death. They both chose to disobey God unto death. As a result of their sin, they died (Gen 2:17).
Then we pick up at Paul’s argument. Because Adam sinned, sin and death entered into the world (Rom 5:12). Then he says something extremely interesting. He says that “death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). What can “death spread to all men” possibly mean? It means that the state of spiritual death was applied to all of humanity. This universal, spiritual death is consistent with Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. In 15:22 we read that “in Adam all die.”
So why did this universal, spiritual death come upon all of humanity? Paul’s answer is because “all sinned.” Not “all sin.” That’s important. It’s a past tense. It’s the aorist tense in the Greek, which is a past tense verb indicating that at one point in time all sinned.
So at what point in time did every human being sin? At the time Adam disobeyed. When Adam disobeyed God, he fell from the state and nature he enjoyed. At that point, he had a fallen nature. As his descendents, all humanity also has that fallen nature, because in Adam all of humanity sinned.
Even though we hadn’t sinned as individuals the way Adam did, this universal, spiritual death still reigned over humanity. That’s Romans 5:14: “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”
Through that transgression — the transgression of Adam, which was the transgression of all humanity — condemnation spread to all men. That universal, spiritual death brought its consequences of universal, spiritual condemnation. That means there was a sentence of judgment delivered on all men as a collective body because of Adam’s sin. God imputes the guilt and responsibility of Adam’s sin to the entire human race. That’s Romans 5:18: “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.”
Romans 5:19 reaffirms this point ad nauseum: That because of Adam’s sin (which was the sin in which “all sinned,” v. 12) all human beings were made sinners. We hadn’t individually sinned in the likeness of Adam (v. 14), but we were made sinners. That means that we are not sinful because we sin, but we sin because we are sinful. We didn’t become sinful when we committed our first sin. Rather, because we were made sinners (i.e., sinful), we sinned for the first time the first chance we got.
It is for this reason that Paul, in Ephesians 2:3, can properly, justly, and fairly call us children of wrath by nature. That is, we have a fallen human nature as a result of the Fall (Adam’s sin, in which we all sinned), that, if left to ourselves, results in wrath. That’s what it means to be by nature children of wrath. That we will naturally incur God’s wrath if nothing intercedes.
But Ray, someone does intercede. Because I was entirely helpless to get rid of that fallen nature, entirely unable to choose God and live (unlike Adam who had the choice), God was pleased to crush His Son (Is 53:10) with the wrath that was rightfully mine. He was pleased to impute my sinfulness and my sins to Christ, and pleased to impute Christ’s righteousness to me, even though it meant the crushing of His Son.
So you see, in the same way that sin and death entered the world and infected all men through one man (Adam), obedience and righteousness entered into the world and is imputed to many through One Man (Jesus, the last Adam)! As condemnation came into the world through one man, so justification and righteousness came through One Man!
Ray, I urge you again, to look upon this Christ, to hear this Christ, and to believe upon this Christ, and not the one of your own imagination. Gaze into the beauty of this Christ, and then look at yourself and see the sin-and-death-corrupted nature you carry even from conception. Despair of your condemned condition without this Christ, and then trust this Christ to impute to you His righteousness!
Ray,
I also apologize for my impatient attitude toward you, and ask your forgiveness.
I will assume, for a moment, that all babies that die go to heaven. Assuming that, if point 1 is true, then all babies that die and go to heaven were saved. If this is true and also point 2 is true, then all these babies were saved through Christ’s death. If this is true and point 3 is also true, then all these babies were sinners. If these babies are in heaven because they were saved, and were saved through the death of one who only died for sinners, then they are all sinners. If Christ died for them, and Christ only died for sinners, then they are sinners. So going along with your belief that Christ died for all men, then this means that all men are sinners. And again, this all comes from YOUR belief that all babies that die go to heaven.
If you agree with all 3 points, this is where you will end up: the babies that die and go to heaven were sinners. If you disagree with one or more of the 3 points, then you will end up with your belief that babies are born sinless and without a sin nature. You come up with the latter, so since this is a result of not believing all 3 points, you must not believe all 3 points. I would appreciate it if you would tell me which one(s) you disagree with, and why.
Mike, Daniel, Ray
Just thought it was of interest that the article posted today, “From Grief to Glory” is a book review of a book about this very subject. I asked Nathan to respond with something that explains the “all babies go to heaven” teaching and he did with links to three teachings by John MacArthur. MacArthur believes that all babies do go to heaven and tries to explain why in these teachings.
Mike, your last posting is a very good summary.
Guys, take time to read the two links to MacArthur’s sermons on this subject. I just finished the first half and it is good. He shows how, even though babies are born with a sin nature (as Mike and Daniel believe) that God still saves them all to heaven and he explains this with scripture. It is the best explanation I have heard and am looking forward to part II.
Mike F,
I just finished reading the second sermon. Wow. It is very good. As I have been debating with Ray, no one is sinless or without a sin nature. I do not necessarily believe that ALL babies that die go to heaven, but I do believe that God does elect some. However, the fact that a baby that dies goes to heaven completely goes against Arminian theology of salvation because the infant was unable to make a decision to accept Christ. Thanks for calling my attention to those links.
Ray,
I would encourage you to read at least the second link. Here is one quote by MacArthur.
“Now let me summarize. No view of infant salvation which denies original sin and total depravity is true. Did you get that? No view of infant salvation which denies original sin and total depravity is true. Babies are not free from sin, they are sinners.”
I believe that all the babies that God elects will be saved out of their sin natures and apart from their “chioce” to accept Christ. I don’t know how many babies God has elected. He may have elected all those that die, and He may have elected only some, I don’t know how many. However, I do know that the fact that even one could be saved denies Arminian theology, as it does not give the infant the choice to accept. Therefore we must conclude that salvation is not attained by Him who wills or accepts it, but is given by God to whomever He wants.
Finding lots of confusion in this blog. Some say all babies that die are saved.Some say only the elect babies . Some say some babies are the non-elect and will perish in the fires of hell . In answer to inherited sin : It seems if you believe in inherited sin then you have to say that all babies , if they receive the condemnation of Adamic sin at the point of conception , then all babies are born with the possibility of going to hell if they die, unless of course , they are the elect babies. Which one is it , all are lost or all are saved or some are and some are not , which ? If you beleive in inherited sin then you shaould warn the world not to have any children. Your child could die and then be in danger of the fires of hell because you do not know if your child is one of the elect or not. I know someone will tell me I am being argumenative , but this is the only conclusion I can come to. I have either veen moderated or insulted and the the implication that I have never looked to Jesus for salvation. The ultimate insult. I accepted Jesus as Savior and was baptized for the forgiveness of my sins a long time ago. I trusted in His blood to cleanse me. I get enough grief in life without having to experience it in this blog , that I thhought a person could have some lively discussion , have some serious back and forth without the childish attempts at character assasination. For me , enough is enough.
Mike and Daniel ,
I answered you today but my comments are not being allowed.
Ray, I am responding to your posts from a little earlier, my original response is awaiting moderation.
Ezek 18:19-20 teaches that a son will not be guilty of the sins of his father. I agree. If my father did something sinful, I would not be punished for that. Inheriting a sinful nature from Adam is not the same as being punished for the sins of my father.
You said, “Not one of the verses you gave me said that each person who is born , is born with sin inherited from Adam.”
Every one of the verses that I gave you said that ALL have sinned and there is NONE righteous NO NOT ONE. This means that ALL have sinned. From the elderly to the infant, ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Not all have necessarily sinned in the likeness of Adam, but all are sinful by nature (and were by NATURE the children of wrath).
As far as Psalm 58, I never said that this chapter has anything to do with inherited sin. Please deal with the verses that I have mentioned (just dismissing a verse is not dealing with it).
The doctrine of inherited sin is not a Calvinistic teaching. Calvin believed this teaching, but this doctrine is central to the belief that salvation is by grace alone, not just Calvinism. If you believe that we all started out without a sin nature (the natural inability to please God) then here are some arguments that you will have to deal with.
“What was so amazing about Christ’s life? He just lasted longer without sinning then we did.” “Anyone is capable of living a sinless life?” “ALL THESE HAVE I KEPT FROM MY YOUTH. I am STILL sinless.”
How would you respond to someone who said that they were still sinless? According to your belief, it is entirely possible to live a sinless life.
I don’t know if your comment (the one awaiting moderation) contains an answer to my 3 points question, but if it doesn’t, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE answer it. You need to see that if you deny that babies have a sin nature, and believe that all babies that die go to heaven, you must deny one or more of these 3 points. It would be helpful for me to know which point you deny.
Daniel ,
I have had enough. I am tired of some of the insults and especailly those that imply I am not a Christian.
Ray,
I am not intending to insult you or to imply that you are not a Christian. This is the farthest thing from my mind. How have I insulted you, and how have I implied that you are not a Christian? As far as I know, I have only attempted to show you where your belief about inherited sin will take you, because it is a dangerous belief. I am not insulting or attacking you personally, I am debating a very central doctrine with you.
I have had enough from all those who have insulted. I get enough grief ,I do not need it here. Enough is enough.
Ray,
How have I insulted you?
My last post was a general post. My main concern is with moderation. Now they allow it but way out of order. I at one time had a lot of respect for this blog and those associated with it. But no more. They must be afraid of the truth. But I am finding blogs either moderate or personal attacks begin. I have that all the time and do not need it here. It would be good to have an open , honest dsicussion without so much junk. One of the reasons I have not had more lengthy posts is because of being moderated.It is very frustrating to try and answer in the order requested and then to be told you are being moderated. Why even make an effort. Also , being implied that I shhould look to Christ. I have been a Christian for nearly 50 years. I have always trusted in the blood of Jesus to save me. His sacrifice is the basis of our hope. This is my last post. Bye.
Ray,
In case you are still looking, no one has insulted you personally. We are not here to attack each other, we are here to discuss issues. My questions were not pointed toward your personal salvation, they were pointed to the way that salvation is attained. I am sorry that you do not desire to discuss this any more. Please do not take my questions as insults against you personally, that is not the intent. The intent is to show scripturally which belief is correct, and I believe that your response shows that that has been done. Apparently you did not desire to have your beliefs challenged.
Ray,
No one has questioned your salvation.
I do not know if all babies that die are the elect or if only some are. I do know that all babies have a sin nature.
Ray,
The reason I’m presenting the gospel to you is because throughout this thread you have consistently denied a core doctrine of Christianity, i.e., original sin. All I’m trying to tell you is that throughout history, there have been people who have thought like you and denied that all humans are born sinful and are worthy of hell at conception. These people have consistently been described as heretics and those that have defected from orthodoxy. The earliest example that I can recall/know of was Pelagius and Caelestius, who were both condemned at the Council of Carthage in 418. So you can believe what you believe about original sin, but I don’t think it’s fair to call that Christianity. Historically, Christians and the Church have defined themselves as something. Part of that definition is the belief in the just condemnation of the human race because of the sin of Adam, in whose loins (cf. the famous term, in lumbus Adomai) all of humanity was when he sinned.
I’ve tried to present this truth to you in Scripture, and many times you mocked and dismissed things. So at that point, not only was I dealing with doctrinal error historically classified as heresy, but with someone who would not deal honestly or logically with positions and their consequences. Given all of that, it seemed reasonable to me to say that you have an idea of who God and Jesus are, and an idea about what the Bible teaches, but that those ideas don’t match up with reality. I fear that you may have a different “Jesus” in mind; that is, a Jesus who does not save people who are corrupted by original sin. So I invite you to trust the Jesus who is, and not that one.
And Ray, you shouldn’t be insulted. The only reason one should feel insulted if told they’re not saved is if there was any merit due the person who was saved. Your faulty theology supports this idea, but I ask you to put this error off as well. A clear presentation of the gospel to one whose salvation is unsure (at least from the presenter’s point of view) is the most loving, not insulting, thing anyone can say/do.
And everyone gets moderated. I got moderated all sorts of time last week and actually emailed Jesse and Nathan about it. It’s a server issue, not a censorship issue.
I hope that you’ll read over these comments carefully again, and really meditate on them, and ask yourself in your heart if you can with a good conscience dismiss all of the Scriptural support you were given by Daniel and me. This is all towards a desire to see people built up and rooted in the true Gospel. I pray that that happens.
MIKE
Mike ,
After what you wrote I must respond. Actaully , you have insulted me again but you just do not see it. I am able to take anything but I had thought maybe this could be a discussion without personal attacks.
I have not mocked ; just asked and have yet to be given a good scriptural answer. You say you have. I have given several answers ; you say I have not . I have been honest and logical. You say I have not. We can go forever about what each has said. That is why I said we will continue to disagree
You may consider inherited sin as a core doctrine of Christianity from your view but never forget the Christans through the centuries that have not believed in inherited sin and as you say have been considered heretics and that must also include me. That can be turned around the other way as well. There is a whole host of dedicated Chritians who do not believe in inherited sin.
I have had Jesus as my Savior for close to 5o years. The Jesus I read about in scripture. The resurrected Jesus ,born of a virgin , crucified for our sins and whose blood will cleanse all those who believe in Him. You are not writing to a novice.
I am not interested in a personal theology but the doctrines of scripture. That is what I have presented. You may not agree, but to condemn me as a heretic is another thing. What I beleive is not faulty or in error.
If you want to dscuss the differences fine, but to always have to be accused of dancing around, not being honest , logical , being in error, etc, then why even try to discuss.
I think it is interesting that every time I have been moderated , it has been after a lengthy comment in opposition to inherited sin. But then the blog is not mine. Whatever they have to do , they must do. It is one of the reasons I have not had real long posts.
I have obeyed the gospel and am constantly presenting it to people all the time. Every time an opportunity comes to me. The gospel about Jesus Christ. The gospel that saves.
Ray,
You said, “The resurrected Jesus ,born of a virgin , crucified for our SINS…”
I am surprised that you would say this. You obviously believe that babies that die do not have any sin. So if Christ died for what they didn’t have, then for them, Christ’s death was not an atonement.
Daniel ,
Jesus atonement was for the sins of those who have sinned. What are the sins of newborn babies ? What part or parts of the law have they broken , diobeyed ? We get back to inherited sin . If all babies are born accountable for the sin of Adam, then again I ask will those that die go to hell or will there be a difference between the elect or non-elect. But how would a parent know ? What despair . If Jesus death was for all babies then what about elect and non-elect babies ? Was His death just for the elect ? That is why I say the teaching of inherited sin gets very confusing. At least for me it is.
If Jesus death covers all babies that die , then what does that do for the teaching of limited atonement ? These are not mocking questions but real questions for me. Trying to be honest , logical and not dancing around.
Ray,
Jesus died for the elect. His death (not just His sufferings) actually paid for all of the sin and the sins of His elect, such that they no longer have to pay that debt.
Babies are born accountable for the sin of Adam. If they die, they rightfully deserve to be punished in hell as a testimony to the wickedness of mankind represented in Adam’s sin, as every one of those babies sinned in Adam (Romans 5:13 — “all sinned,” past tense). If God has chosen to elect some of those dead infants to salvation, He can save them by miraculously bringing them to faith.
You ask how a parent would know. They wouldn’t. The same way no one knows if another is truly saved. All we have to go on is a profession and fruit, but even those can be deceiving.
You remark, “What despair.” This is true. The consequences of sin include despair. But I think this whole discussion has hinged upon your emotions about what happens to infants if they die. Your entire hermeneutical approach for accepting or rejecting doctrine hasn’t been the Scriptures alone; it’s been filtered through what you think is “fair” to babies and grieving parents. This is an emotional issue, and we do need to be sensitive to it, but not at the expense of truth.
There is a whole host of dedicated Chritians who do not believe in inherited sin.
You miss the point there, Ray. Those people weren’t Christians. They were considered outside the church, no different from the world. Christianity means something. There’s a definition. Part of that definition has historically included original sin. You can’t rewrite history.
Sure, Pelagius and Caelestius turned around and condemned Augustine and the Council of Carthage as heretics, but it was Pelagius and Caelestius who were banished from Rome, and it was the practice of the early church, through Anselm and Aquinas, through even the medieval church (even though they had a faulty idea of how you could get rid of original sin) all taught that all mankind is guilty of the sin of Adam. This continued right up through the reformation with Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.
Then you had Arminius, the anti-reformer, but who was different than Pelagius and even semi-Pelagian teachings. Even Arminius taught we have original sin. He just had erroneous ideas about how we deal with it (prevenient grace vs. effectual grace). Now, I think Arminius was a root cause of SO much doctrinal error in the church for the last 3 centuries, and has been the root cause of a ton of people not seeing the glory of God in His sovereign grace, and I really dislike him for it. But even Arminius taught original sin, and depsite other egregious doctrinal errors, he isn’t considered a heretic.
But all those people who teach against original sin are not Christians. All those who are Christians do (whether they’re right about how to deal with it or not). So you can persist in your unbelief of original sin, but you are creating a category that the entire history of the church has never tolerated.
So, sure, it can go both ways. But are you ready to commit to saying that Augustine, Anslem, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon, and even Arminius are heretics?
And I don’t mean for this to be mudslinging. It’s unfortunate that you have to take it that way. But all I know is that the Bible teaches things. All of them should be believed. Some things, if not believed, exclude the opportunity for salvation. If I see that happening, I want to warn someone, so they can throw off the error and put on the Truth. It’s all about giving glory to Christ, and that’s what I’d like to see happen in your case. But it can’t as long as you think that people can, in their own piety, be sinless at birth and then remain sinless through all sorts of efforts and commitments and Bible reading — somehow satisfy the requirements of God’s Law. If that’s the case, Jesus didn’t really have to die. The true spiritual and godly people would have made it on their own. But the reality is that we are, by nature, children of wrath. Jesus knew that, and absorbed that very wrath that was due the elect and paid their penalty. And through faith in that Jesus, we are made alive from our death.
“To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect.” — John Owen
Ray,
If all of us start out sinless, and therefore are saved, then for us to continue in that sinless state would be a works-based salvation.
If we take just the Bible with no pre-conceived ideas or biases, we would never come up with the idea that all are born without a sin nature and completely perfect. The Bible clearly teaches that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We have not all sinned in the likeness of Adam (an actual transgression), but we are corrupt people. We are a fallen people living in a fallen world. Nothing is perfect any more. What significance did Adam’s sin have if it did not bring a curse on all of his decendants?
You said, “Jesus atonement was for the sins of those who have sinned.”
ALL HAVE SINNED! What is confusing about this? I am sorry, but this is just amazing. The Bible is clear. ALL have sinned.
Mike ,
You have given me your insight into some of Church History but salvation is not based upon Jesus plus church history. Makes no difference ; what is important is the teaching of scripture. Jesus atoned for the whole world.I John 2 : 2 . Those who put their faith in Him and accept His atonement are the elect. They make up the elect. Eph. 1 : 1- 10. They are the predestined. Not one infant can accept this truth because they cannot believe , repent, confess and then be immersed for the forgiveness of sins, that they have not committed. I also would like to see the verse that says God would give a baby miraculous faith. Rom. 5 : 12 says nothing about infants being accountable for the sin of Adam. And my questions about infants are not emotional , just the logical conclusions of believing in inherited sin.
Daniel ,
It is amazing to me that you can find every baby ever born accountable for the sin of Adam out of Rom. 5 : 12 .
I have never said anything about works salvation. Those are your words. Not mine. All I continue to say is that I do not find in the verses you continue to give me any teaching about all babies inheriting a curse derived from Adam .
Mike and Daniel ,
Being moderated again . I have answered you. Maybe it will come through.
Ray,
I will wait for your response to come through. I have had several comments that had to wait a while. Again, I encourage you not to take our comment as personal insults against you. We are not here to degrade or attack one another, so please take our comments as iron to sharpen iron.
Ray,
You asked, “What part or parts of the law have they broken , diobeyed ?”
They may not have sinned in the likeness of Adam, but the sin nature is passed to all. Rom. 5:14,17-19
You also asked, “If all babies are born accountable for the sin of Adam, then again I ask will those that die go to hell or will there be a difference between the elect or non-elect.”
The question here is not what will happen to a baby that dies, the question is whether a baby has a sin nature or not. I think that MacArthurs sermons are very good. He makes a strong case to say that all babies that die go to heaven, but that they do not go to heaven based on their perfection, but of God’s choosing. If salvation was based on our own perfection, well…
You said, “But how would a parent know ? What despair .”
Again, I am NOT saying that not all babies go to heaven, I am saying that ALL babies have a sin nature. Can someone go to heaven even if they have a sin nature? Yes, I still have a sin nature, but God chose me anyway. That is why I say that salvation is not based on our performance, but on God’s choosing. And David did not despair of his child. He knew where his child was. Rom. 9:15,16
You said, “If Jesus death was for all babies then what about elect and non-elect babies ? Was His death just for the elect ?”
The argument is not that Jesus death was for all babies, but that Jesus death was for all babies that die. And yes, His death was just for the elect. If a baby dies, MacArthur would say that this baby was one of the elect.
You said, “If Jesus death covers all babies that die , then what does that do for the teaching of limited atonement ?”
Absolutely nothing. Not all babies are the elect. Not all babies die. MacArthur would say that all those that die were the elect.
Ray,
Another quick thought. To say that the babies that die go to heaven because of their perfection, is to say that their perfection was the merit of their ultimate salvation. No one that was ever saved or that will ever be saved is saved based on their own merit.
Here is a quote from John MacArthur’s 3rd sermon.
“If infants were not sinful, if they were morally neutral there would be then no basis for them to die because it is the wages of sin that is death.”
Ray,
If “all” does not mean “all” then what does it mean?
Ray,
In your comment, you mentioned 1Jo 2:2 “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
But you believe that the whole world does not have sin. Did Christ die for the babies that die?
Daniel,
Sorry for the long delay. Besides being moderated , I have had computer problems.
I do not read inherited sin or sin nature being passed on in the Romans passages.
I cannot read where babies are born with a sin nature.
Where is the passage that says some babies that die are the elect ? Also , I have never said anything about being saved by being perfect. All I have said is that I cannot find the scriptures that say all babies are accountable for the sin of Adam. Since Ezek. 18 says that the child is not accountable for the sins of the father , then neither was Cain or Abel accountable , guilty for the sins of Adam.
All have sinned does not mean all were born with inherited sin.
Our disagreement goes back to some fundamental differences concerning inherited sin , the elect , limited atonement ,irresistable grace and once saved always saved. We will continue to disagree on what the scriptures say about each point.
Ray,
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
I have a couple questions for you:
You said, “I do not read inherited sin or sin nature being passed on in the Romans passages.”
But this verse says that death passed upon all men. Do you believe that it is possible for someone (a regular man) to live a perfect life?
Second question,
Did Christ die for the babies that die?
You said, “Also , I have never said anything about being saved by being perfect.”
But you do believe that babies are perfect, right? You have said that they have no sin.
You said, “We will continue to disagree on what the scriptures say about each point.”
This is not a matter of just disagreeing, you are denying the very basis of redemption. If a baby goes to heaven, that baby must have been saved, but saved from what? To say that a baby has no sin is to say that that baby is not deserving of hell. If a baby does not deserve hell, then what did Christ die for? Christ must not have died for that baby. If Christ died for a baby, then that baby must have been a sinner. You have said that you believe that Christ died for EVERYBODY, so you MUST also believe that EVERYBODY is a sinner, because Christ only died for sinners. If a baby is sinless, then there is no need for Christ to die for that baby.
Third question,
When Adam sinned, what happened to the human race?
Also, Ray, would you PLEASE answer my 3-points question?
Daniel ,
Never said a man can live a perfect life. I have asked several times, where is the scripture that says all babies are born condemned because of Adam and if they are then what happens to those who die ? As a result of Adam and his sin , sin came into the world. He sinned . Eve sinned . Sin came into the world . Death came into the world. But that is different in a baby having to suffer the consequences via inherited sin. The Ezek. passage says the child does not answer to the parental sins. That would include the children of Adam and on through the centuries. If children , all children inherit sin , then do all of them need to be baptized or sprinkled or what needs to be done in case of death ? I do not beleive in infant sprinkling or baptism . The baby cannot believe , repent of sins the baby has never committed , or make a confession. The baby cannot understand the reasons for baptism.
No problem with me on the fundamental facts of redemption. Without Christ there is no redemption, forgiveness,reconciliation and eternal hope.
Ray,
The Ezekiel passage is ONLY saying that if my father does something, that it would be wrong for me to be punished by law. The way you see this verse is contradictory with some other verses.
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
How would you interpret this verse to be in line with the way you interpret the passage in Ezekiel. The passage in Ezekiel is saying that if my father robs a bank, it is not right that I should have to go to jail.
You asked, “I have asked several times, where is the scripture that says all babies are born condemned because of Adam and if they are then what happens to those who die ?”
Here is the verse: Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
As far as what happens to those who die, I believe that God saves them. According to your view of salvation, they could not be saved, but my belief is consistent with the idea that God chooses apart from our will. If God chooses who will be saved, then it is possible, for an infant that dies, to be saved.
You said, “Never said a man can live a perfect life.”
Not directly, but this is a necessary conclusion from your belief. If man does not have a sin nature then it is possible to go through life without sinning. Just as it was possible for Adam and Eve to choose not to eat of the fruit, it would be possible for us. If you believe that it is not possible for man to life a perfect life, then what do you think it is that makes it impossible?
You asked, “If children , all children inherit sin , then do all of them need to be baptized or sprinkled or what needs to be done in case of death ?”
Baptism is not necessary for salvation, only God’s choosing. In case of death, we do nothing. There is nothing we can do to secure salvation for anyone.
You said, “The baby cannot believe , repent of sins the baby has never committed , or make a confession.”
So it must be God’s choosing, not the baby’s.
You said, “No problem with me on the fundamental facts of redemption. Without Christ there is no redemption, forgiveness,reconciliation and eternal hope.”
Redemption from what? Forgiveness from what? Why reconciliation, the baby has not done anything to need it. According to your view, the baby does not need salvation, because he is sinless. Without salvation, a baby cannot go to heaven. Without Christ dying for a baby, that baby could not go to heaven. But Christ only died for sinners, so if He died for a baby, then that baby is a sinner.
Then after all is said , we disagree at every point. It has been a good discussion.
Ray,
The only way you have answered the verses that I have shared is by saying that you don’t agree that that is what they are saying. Could you please tell me what you think they are saying. Simply saying that we disagree is not an adequate answer. If you cannot prove to me from scripture why you disagree, and be able to refute my points and answer my question, then you should not hold to any such view.
Daniel ,
You know I have given you many scriptural answers. You just do not agree.
You have given me your insight into some of Church History but salvation is not based upon Jesus plus church history.
Ray, I never said salvation was Jesus + Church history. May I just say that I find it astounding at how much you avoid the actual issues that we’re trying to discuss and how much rhetoric you put forth against arguments that don’t even exist. If you’re not interested in discussing the issues, just say that.
Nevertheless, you cannot just dismiss out of hand what I said concerning church history, because my point was historical. Christianity means something. It has historically meant something. To say, “I’m a Christian,” means that you agree with what has historically been meant by “I’m a Christian.” There has never existed a category called “Christians who don’t believe in original sin.” It just hasn’t existed. There has, however, been a category for “Professing Christians who don’t believei n original sin.” That category has been called “heresy,” or more specifically, “Pelagianism.” I dare you to interact with what I said there. No dancing, no rhetoric, just honestly interact with it.
Also, if you reject all this, would you be willing, then, to make the statement that all the men I talked about earlier were heretics? That the entire historical Church for 2,000 years has gotten this wrong? I dare you to answer with a simple yes or no — followed by reasoning if you’d like — but starting with a yes or no.
Jesus atoned for the whole world. I John 2 : 2 . Those who put their faith in Him and accept His atonement are the elect.
Your faulty view of the atonement renders those two statements contradictory. If Jesus actually did atone for the whole world, there’s no accepting or rejecting of the atonement. He either did it or He didn’t. If He just sorta “half-atoned” for people, or “potentially” atoned for people, He didn’t actually atone for anyone, and so He did not atone for the whole world.
So that’s wrong right out of the gate. But even if I granted you that those two sentences weren’t contradictory, it would still make no sense. If Jesus atoned for the whole world, does that mean the whole world is saved? It should mean that. If Jesus died for my sins, paying the penalty that was due me, it means I don’t have to pay for them. If He really payed for them, the debt no longer remains outstanding. Why would I pay for something that is already paid for? Obviously, this text doesn’t teach that He atoned for the sin of every individual in the whole world; rather, it teaches that He atoned for the sin of men all over the world, that is, not just Jews but Samaritans and Gentiles also.
They make up the elect. Eph. 1 : 1- 10. They are the predestined.
So let me get this straight… the elect, or the “chosen” are the chosen because of their own choice, and not because of God’s choice? Doesn’t cut it, Ray.
Not one infant can accept this truth because they cannot believe , repent, confess and then be immersed for the forgiveness of sins, that they have not committed. Rom. 5 : 12 says nothing about infants being accountable for the sin of Adam.
Bro, …because all sinned, Rom 5:12. Why don’t you see that? All sinned. Past tense. Not all will have sinned. Not all will sin. Not all sin in general. All sinnED.
And not one grown person can accept this truth! Because they cannot believe, repent, confess, or be immersed for the forgiveness of sins that they have committed. They are dead! Dead in their trespasses and sins, being by nature children of wrath.
I also would like to see the verse that says God would give a baby miraculous faith.
Again, I never said this was what God does, but that it’s possible. However, you can read the entire Bible for examples of verses that say God gives grown people miraculous faith. The notion that I believed the Gospel is just as astounding and miraculous as the notion of a 1-day-old infant believing the Gospel. It’s impossible! But God miraculously regenerated me, gave me saving faith, and now I get to be in heaven with Him for all eternity. My only point was, He does it with grown folks, He can do it with babies.
Unless you interact honestly with what I’ve said, I may not address you further. I’d encourage you too, Daniel, to consider stopping this “conversation” without evidence of honest interaction. I believe that this has spun into a violation of Matthew 7:6.
Mike ,
Looks like you have gone back to personal
attacks. Too bad .
You are the one calling people heretics . Not me. That burden is on you. You can choose to be the judge.
Jesus atoned for the world. I can only give you again what scripture says. If you choose not to believe passages like I John 2 and John 3 : 16 , then that is your free moral choice. He gave His life but not everyone will believe. Whosoever will , will be saved.
Romans 5 : 12 does not say all babies have sinned and you know it. You are reading into the text what you want to read into the text. The wording about infants is not there. If it is , show me.
If what I am writing is not honest ( that is to say by your defintion ) enough for you, ok . I have given clear scriptural answers. You just do not agree. You choose whether you want to interact. Another free choice.
Ray,
You said, “If you choose not to believe passages like I John 2 and John 3 : 16 , then that is your free moral choice.”
We believe those verses, you just haven’t been able to prove that they support your view.
You said, “Romans 5 : 12 does not say all babies have sinned and you know it.”
Ray, what part of “ALL” is confusing? I guess if you don’t believe that babies constitute a part of humanity, you might have an argument. AGAIN, I ask, what does “all” mean?
You said, “The wording about infants is not there. If it is , show me.”
Here it is, Ray. ALL
You have refused over and over again to respond to my points and questions. Saying we disagree is not enough. I could have told you that. If you are to have any credibility, you need to start dealing with some of the points that have been mentioned (for instance, my 3 points question).
You said, “You are reading into the text what you want to read into the text.”
Let’s see who is reading in. I look at Romans 5:12 and say well all have sinned. You look at it and say all but infants have sinned. I look at Romans 3:23 and say well ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. You look at it and say babies are perfect and do not fall short of the glory of God. Who is reading in?
Did Christ die for a baby that dies? If we are to continue this discussion, you really need to answer this question.
Daniel ,
I have answered a number of times. I am not confused at all. You say all means babies inherit sin and I say that is reading into the text what you want to believe. I am not avoiding at all. If you do not like the way I have answered then do not continue the discussion. Just as you say all means babies inherit sin , I say I John 2 and John 3 : 16 teach that limited atonement is of men. Especially the wording of the doctrine. I believe the passages support what I beleive. You do not. Again , we disagree and you may think that is not confronting the issues but I have no other way to say it.
Ray,
1) If you do not believe that “all” includes babies, then you are the one reading what you want.
You ARE avoiding my points and questions. You still have not made any attempt to answer my 3 points.
2) You believe that babies are sinless. Because of this, you must necessarily also believe that Christ did not die for them, because Christ only died for sinners. Scine you believe that Christ did not die for them, you must also believe that they will not go to heaven, because only those whom Christ died for will go to heaven.
Please respond to these 2 points and also to my 3-points.
Daniel .
It is a free country and I guess we are free to make comments on this blog , so go on ahead and assume what you believe I beleive. Draw your own conclusions. I have made numerous commente to you on several posts about inherited sin . I have made comments on Psalm 51 and 58. I have commented on the Roamns passagesa and said I do not believe the all have sinned statement means we are all born being accountable for Adam and his sin. I have given you scriptures and logical reasons , and you know I have. You may think I have avoided the issuses but I have not. I have written about limited atonement and passages from I John and John 3 and there are others that I could quote . I really do not know what else to say. It has been a good discussion.
If any one is intrested Jhon MCarthur has a 12 cd teaching called the doctrines of grace.3 of them are on percerverance of the saints and the rest are on the doctrines of grace.Any one intreted can go to gty.org for more infermation.
Ray,
Yout last post did not answer my questions.
You said, “It is a free country and I guess we are free to make comments on this blog , so go on ahead and assume what you believe I beleive.”
You believe that babies are sinless, therefore, if they have not sinned, then not all have sinned, right? If you believe that not all have sinned, then say so. ANSWER ME.
You said, “I have commented on the Roamns passagesa and said I do not believe the all have sinned statement means we are all born being accountable for Adam and his sin.”
Saying that you disagree will never show me why you disagree, or do anything else that could validate your view. You do not agree that ALL have sinned, so you will have to disagree with the Bible on that, not just me. If the Bible says that all have sinned, then it is so. That is just all there is to it.
You said, “I have given you scriptures and logical reasons , and you know I have.”
This is news to me. I have not heard anything logical yet. Is it logical to disagree with the Bible when it says that when Adam sinned, death passed to ALL men because in Adam all sinned? Is it logical to hold to a view when you cannot disprove a contradictory one?
You said, “You may think I have avoided the issuses but I have not.”
YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY 3 POINTS QUESTION!!
You said, “I really do not know what else to say.”
Start by answering some of my comments with something other than “we disagree.” Tell me if you believe that Christ died for a baby that dies. Also tell me when you believe someone gets a sin nature, if not at birth.
Daniel ,
I have answered your 3 questions throughout this blog. But you have not agreed with my answers. But to go over this ground again…
1. Only those who obey will be saved and go to heaven. Heb. 5 : 9 .
Babies cannot obey.They are innocent.
2. Christ is the way to God. John14 : 6
He died for sinners. I Cor. 15 : 3. Babies have not sinned. What law of God has a baby broken ?
3.Christ’s atonement was for the whole world. I John 2 : 2. Babies if they die are saved because they have not violated any commandment of God. I cannot find a passage that says at the moment a baby is born, that baby is held accountable for sin. Or at the moment of conception.
Those who put their faith in Jesus , John 3 :16 , repent , Acts 3 : 19 , confess , Romans 10 : 9 and are baptized , Acts 2 : 38 will be saved. How can the baby do any of these ?
Ray,
Thank you for answering my 3 points question. We cannot discuss anything if no one will answer the other’s questions, so thank you.
According to your last post, you believe that 1) Only those who are saved will go to heaven 2) Christ is the only way to heaven and 3) Christ only died for sinners. So you agree with my 3 points, good. Don’t you see how your view that “Babies if they die are saved because they have not violated any commandment of God” is in contradiction with your other 3 statements? If Christ only died for sinners, and Christ’s death is the only means to salvation, then for a baby to go to heaven, he must have been saved (only those who are saved will go to heaven), he must have been saved through Christ’s death (Christ is the only way to heaven), and, since Christ only died for sinners, that babies must be a sinner. In order for you to be able to believe what you do about infant perfection, then you must deny one of those 3 points, but since you agree with all three, you must deny that infants are sinless.
According to your last post, you believe two contradictory views. 1) infants are sinless 2) they are sinners. These cannot both be correct, either you deny the first, or deny one of the 3 points that you have already affirmed.
You said, “I cannot find a passage that says at the moment a baby is born, that baby is held accountable for sin. Or at the moment of conception.”
I have given you a few, but I will attempt to explain it in a little simpler terms.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. This verse means exactly what it says. All (meaning the entire human race) have sinned in Adam. 1Co 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” In Adam all die. Here is what Gill said about it:
“he (Adam) being the federal head of all his posterity, and so a type and figure of Christ that was to come; and being in him, they all sinned in him, and so died in him, the sentence of death passed on them in him; they became subject to a corporeal death, which has ever since reigned over mankind, even over infants, such who have not sinned after the similitude of his transgression;”
Even though infants have not sinned in the likeness of Adam (an actual breaking of God’s law) they HAVE sinned in that they are already estranged from God at the point of conception.
You said, “How can the baby do any of these ?”
HE CANNOT. Do you know what that tells me? That tells me that salvation (necessary for a baby to go to heaven) must be a result of God’s choice and not that of the baby. There is nothing within the baby that merits salvation (we see this clearly in scripture), but you say that there is. You say that the baby goes to heaven because he is sinless, and the Bible says that he goes to heaven because God chose him while he was yet a sinner. Ray, the Bible tells us that apart from God there is NONE righteous. Not only that, but that verse adds even more emphasis with “NO NOT ONE.” Not one human being is righteous before God without salvation, NO NOT ONE.
I know that you believe that babies do not have a sin nature (in spite of clear Biblical teaching), but tell me, if a person does not have a sin nature at birth, when does he get it?
May God give us wisdom as we seek to base our beliefs on His Word and His Word only, apart from our own mindset.
Daniel ,
I agree . May we always base everyhting we believe on scripture. I do that with everything I believe and everything I teach. I find no contradiction in anyhting I have said to you. It has been a good study.
You said, “How can the baby do any of these ?”
HE CANNOT. Do you know what that tells me? That tells me that salvation (necessary for a baby to go to heaven) must be a result of God’s choice and not that of the baby. There is nothing within the baby that merits salvation (we see this clearly in scripture).
Amen.
And I’d just like to add that this is no different for adults. “How can the adult do any of these?” –> HE CANNOT. Unregenerate people of all ages cannot do any of these things because of their spiritually dead, child-of-wrath nature.
It’s helpful when we consider the helplessness and the inability of an infant to “do” anything of spiritual significance. It gives us a true, concrete picture of what the unregenerate man is like, be he 2 months, 20 years, or 80 years old.
Mike,
That was exactly where I was headed with that statement. If a baby is unable to make a concious decision to accept Christ, then, to be consistent, it should not be any different for adults. God is the chooser no matter what your age.
Ray,
You said, “I find no contradiction in anyhting I have said to you.”
Here is the contradiction: First you agreed that Christ only died for sinners, and that only those who are saved will go to heaven; then you said that babies go to heaven not through Christ’s death, but through their own sinless condition. These are in contradiction for the following reason:
1) Christ only died for sinners, and only those for whom Christ died can go to heaven. The result of this belief is that if a baby goes to heaven, Christ must have died for him; and if Christ died for him, then he is a sinner. Do you understand this?
2) A baby goes to heaven because he is sinless, not because Christ died for him. The baby’s eternal state is therefore obtained by his own merit, that being his sinless condition, rather than having been bought with the blood of Christ.
You hold to both of these views and claim that they are not in contradiction. However, the first one says that babies are sinners and the second says they are not. The first one says that salvation is of God’s choosing, the second says that salvation is of human perfection. The first says that man is fallen, the second says that man is not fallen. Do you not see the contradiction? You are going to have to ditch one of those views, and, if I were you, I would not look to my own preconceived ideas to find out which one to get rid of. I would look at all the verses that say that all have sinned, all the verses that say that salvation is not based on our merit, and all the verses that say that no one can be saved unless God chooses them.
Daniel and Mike ,
Can you give an explantion of what you mean by “he cannot.” Is this the teaching of irresistible grace ?
If we cannot then why would Peter have commanded the peolple on the day of Pentecost to repent and be baptized ( Acts 2 : 38 )and all the rest of the examples in the book of Acts where they were told to obey ? Why did Jesus demand people to repent ? Mark 1 : 15. And why did our Lord tell us to baptize disciples ? Matt. 28 : 19. A disciple must make the decision to listen and to follow. Why did Jesus say that those who would be saved are to believe and be baptized to be saved , Mark 16 : 15 and 16. And the Lord said whoever. Also faith comes by hearing the word. Rom. 10 : 17. Those who obey will be saved . Heb 5 : 9 . Sounds like choices have to be made. Some will accept and some will reject. Not writing about merit or works of the law but obedience of faith. Rom. 1 : 5 and Rom. 16 : 20 . Are you saying that each indidviual is totally incapable of belief , repentance , confession and baptism , even though our Lord still commands all who would be saved to obey from the faith that comes from hearing the word ?
Ray,
Not the teaching of irresistable grace, but the teaching of total depravity or inability.
I would highly recommend reading the post on pyromaniacs entitled, “How can we be held responsible for our own inability?” There is a link to the pyromaniacs blog site under “links we like.”
Here is are some quotes from that article, “Our inability does not arise from a lack of physical, rational, or cognitive faculties. It arises from a wrong moral inclination—a will that is firmly set against the truth and has no inclination to will otherwise. All our faculties—our minds, emotions, and wills—work just fine. That is, we can think and act and choose freely according to whatever our own desires and motives are. But that is precisely the problem: our desires and motives are the very thing sin has corrupted. Our desires are defective. So the will itself is therefore bent against righteousness. Our corruption is therefore a willful depravity. Our will is free to choose according to our desires, but it is not free to determine those desires. The will is free in the sense that our choices are not forced upon us or compelled by external pressure. But our will is not “free” in the sense of being sovereign over our moral nature. We cannot by an act of will change our character for the better. That is the whole point of Jeremiah 13:23: The sinner has exactly as much ability to turn his own heart to do good as a cheetah has to will his spots away. In other words, depravity corrupts our heart and perverts all our appetites. It so inclines our nature that we love sin. Evil desires therefore govern the choices we make. Since we make those choices freely and with great delight, we are guilty for them.” – Phil Johnson
You said, “Are you saying that each indidviual is totally incapable of belief , repentance , confession and baptism , even though our Lord still commands all who would be saved to obey from the faith that comes from hearing the word ?”
Yes. We are competely incapable of doing anything whatsoever that is good or righteous in God’s eyes, apart from His grace. Where do we get the faith to believe? From whom do we receive the ability to repent, confess, and be baptised? Certainly we do not conjure up this ability from our own hearts. Here is a quote from Charles Spurgeon.
“Can those who reject this doctrine so brashly claim that their desire to follow Christ was something within them that God did not give? Was it some empowerment or some compulsion, created by themselves, to cling to that which their very fallen nature loathed and despised? If that is the case then they truly have reason to boast because they had the intelligence, the fortitude, the confidence, their own created desire to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and to be saved. And even more outrageous: none of those things came from GOD!” – Charles Spurgeon
I commented earlier today, but it is awaiting moderation.
Yes. We are competely incapable of doing anything whatsoever that is good or righteous in God’s eyes, apart from His grace.
Agreed. Except, I’d like to clarify: apart from His regenerating grace. That is, I was spiritually dead. Then I was born again and received a new nature by grace. Then I activated my will in the direction of God, having only at that point — and not before — a nature capable of doing so.
I make this distinction because many will say, “Of course I can do nothing apart from God’s grace.” But non-Calvinists take that to mean, usually, prevenient grace, or a type of general grace given to all men just enough so that they’re not all the way regenerate, but somehow have enough resources to get out of death. Others won’t even get that far into it and just kind of flippantly say, “Well obviously anything we do good is because of God’s grace,” and they ignore the implications of such a statement.
Total assent to the Phil Johnson quote. That whole post is awesome. And the next installment of the series (TBG Friday, I think) is why/how we inherit a sin nature because of Adam’s sin. It’s right up the alley of this post. I hope you’ll both read it.
So those on the day of Pentecost who were told to save themselves and those who accepted the message were totally incapable of repentance and baptism ? Text says 3000 obeyed the gospel. Since without faith it is impossible to please God ( Heb. 11 : 6 ) and since faith comes by hearing the word of God ( Rom. 10 : 17 ), which has to be a decision whether a person will even take the time to hear , then when can a person ever have any kind of faith if everyone is totally incapable ? Have we come back to arbitrary election ? No matter what happens , no matter how many times a person may hear the word which produces faith , only certain ones will be allowed to repent and the rest by arbitrary election will be lost ? In other words , no choice , no opportunity to obey just lost no matter how much they hear the faith producing word , they will just be cast into hell ?
Ray, I’ll answer your questions, but I want to stimulate you to ask honestly, and not with an agenda. If you don’t want answers, don’t ask. If you do want answers and want to learn, ask in such a way that reflects that desire.
So those on the day of Pentecost who were told to save themselves
First of all, that is a terrible translation of the passage, and I am at a total loss as to why so many translations decided that was the way to render that phrase. I don’t blame you for your misunderstanding on this verse. But the word is sōthēte, which is the first aorist passive of the verb sōzō. The proper rendering (and at least the NASB gets this) is: “Be saved” or “Be ye saved.”
and those who accepted the message were totally incapable of repentance and baptism?
They were before they were born again. But before they could accept the message, they were sovereignly regenerated by a gracious God. So they were made capable of repentance when their “hearts were opened by the Lord to respond to the things spoken” (Acts 16:14) by Peter.
Text says 3000 obeyed the gospel.
That’s right. As elsewhere, “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). And this appointment was made when those 3,000 “were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls” (Rom 9:14).
Since without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6) and since faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17), which has to be a decision whether a person will even take the time to hear,
Your handling of Romans 10 is lacking. There is no logical necessity that says hearing the word of God has to be a decision. In fact, the Bible is loaded with examples and proofs of how God sovereignly determines who will hear. John 12 is one such example, quoting Isaiah: “For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,’HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.’” Why can’t people believe? Because He has blinded their eyes. Why can they believe? Because He has opened their heart to receive the Word. It’s all Him. None of us.
Notice further that the verse does not say, “Faith comes by hearing the Word of Christ,” but “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ.” That is, hearing comes by the Word of Christ. So the Word goes forth and convicts and sovereignly regenerates those whom God intends (Is 55:10-11); as a result, people hear. Then, once capable of hearing, they have faith.
then when can a person ever have any kind of faith if everyone is totally incapable?
When he is born again, had his nature changed, and given ears to hear.
No matter what happens, no matter how many times a person may hear the word which produces faith, only certain ones will be allowed to repent and the rest by arbitrary election will be lost?
Even this language of God “allowing” repentance misses the character of God. God does not “allow” people to repent as if there were a bunch of us lining up to beg God to give us the ability to repent. God “grants the repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18) to people who want nothing to do with it. He changes the natures and the hearts of people who desperately hate Him and want nothing to do with Him or His forgiveness of sins, because they love their sin (John 3:19, Prov 8:36). And you know why? Because that’s they’re nature. They are totally corrupted by the depravity of sin. Sin even reaches into their will — their volition — so that they always freely choose their sin and shun God. God isn’t jipping willing souls from the salvation they deserve. What blasphemy. God lovingly and sovereignly breaks into our world of sin-loving and self-worshiping and changes the very fabric of our being, so we can love Him.
In other words, no choice, no opportunity to obey just lost no matter how much they hear the faith producing word, they will just be cast into hell?
Wrong. Every opportunity to obey. The doors of mercy have been flung open. The Word itself became flesh. Light came into the world. The Word was revealed so that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ (John 20:31). But the horror story is that “ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE” (Rom 3:12); that “All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way” (Is 53:6); that “the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light” (John 3:12). All of humanity, according to their nature, are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph 2:3), and so we voluntarily and happily spit in God’s face. We freely do not believe. And why is that again? The Lord says, “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep” (John 10:26).
But oh, for those who are of His sheep, not by their own choosing or power but by the Father’s own choosing of a bride for His son, these that Father foreknew and predestined and justified and called and glorified, to the praise of His Son, that He might have the preeminence in everything (Rom 8:29, Col 1:18)!
I can barely contain myself as I go through these marvelous truths of God’s sovereign election! Oh, Ray! Would you release your tightly-held grip on this exaltation of man and embrace a sovereign Lord! Would you see this glory and this goodness, just as when Moses asked to see God’s glory (Ex 33:18-19) God told Him: “Here it is: I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious! See my glory in my sovereign election!” Ray: see the glory of God pass before you in His sovereign, gracious election!
Ray,
Here is another statement on this topic by Charles Spurgeon.
“The parable of the lost sheep does not read thus: a certain man had 100 sheep and 1 of them wandered away for a time and then came back. And the shepherd gathered together his friends and said ‘behold my sheep was lost and has come back’.”
Election does not mean that men are robots. I think I have said this at least 100 times (not just to you of course), but limited atonement and free will are a matter of perspectives. Put it this way: Is it true that only those whom God draws will be saved? Yes (Joh 6:44). Does God draw all men? No. Then God must have chosen not to do what He did not do. If you answered both those previous questions as written, then you believe in limited atonement.
I believe that all that come to the Father will be saved. Whoever comes will not be cast away. No one ever came to God for salvation that was turned away. We agree on this point. However, it is also true that no one ever came to God whom God had not drawn to do so.
You said, “I find no contradiction in anyhting I have said to you.”
Here is the contradiction: First you agreed that Christ only died for sinners, and that only those who are saved will go to heaven; then you said that babies go to heaven not through Christ’s death, but through their own sinless condition. These are in contradiction for the following reason:
1) Christ only died for sinners, and only those for whom Christ died can go to heaven. The result of this belief is that if a baby goes to heaven, Christ must have died for him; and if Christ died for him, then he is a sinner. Do you understand this?
2) A baby goes to heaven because he is sinless, not because Christ died for him. The baby’s eternal state is therefore obtained by his own merit, that being his sinless condition, rather than having been bought with the blood of Christ.
You hold to both of these views and claim that they are not in contradiction. However, the first one says that babies are sinners and the second says they are not. The first one says that salvation is of God’s choosing, the second says that salvation is of human perfection. The first says that man is fallen, the second says that man is not fallen. Do you not see the contradiction? You cannot hold to both of those views. If I were you, I would look at all the verses that say that all have sinned, all the verses that say that salvation is not based on our merit, and all the verses that say that no one can be saved unless God chooses them, to find out which one to drop.
Ray,
Another question for you: if a person does not have a sin nature at birth, when does he get it?
Daniel ,
You are finding contradicitions and not me. You are the one making this statement. I have said I do not know how many tines that there is not one passage that says all babies are born sinners. Some have interpreted passages like Rom . 5 : 12 and other passages as saying babies are born with inherited sin. I have yet to have a scripture presented that says it. A person can read that into the text if that person is coming from an Agustinian interpretation , which has been debated over the centuries. I have made this clear in what I believe.
Then I have said that Jesus died for sinners but I have said babies are not sinners becuase they have not engaged in any kind of sin, before or after the law was given. Like the sin of Adam or not. I cannot find a paasage that says , all babies inherit the sin of Adam without reading it into the text. You can write all you want about the use of all but it still does not say inherited sin of every baby. It is a historical interpreation by some but not by all. I do not find what I have said as a contradiction.
John 6 : 45 is also a part of the text that explains how anyone is drawn to God , through the word. Faith comes through hearing the word and hearing by the word of God Rom. 10 :17 . John 7 : 17 says if a man chooses …. It is back to whether God gives free choice. I think so , you do not . That is why I say we will continue to disagree. And yes , I have given scriptural reasons for what I believe but it has been throughout this whole blog.
Psst… Hey Daniel… guess what… I’m in luck!
Did you know that it doesn’t say anywhere in the entire Bible that all 22 year olds are sinful?! It seems to be a glimmer of hope. But ya know… that’s not all! There is not one verse anywhere in the whole Bible that says Italian Americans who live in New Jersey are sinful either! You know what that means, dude! I’m off the hook!
Now I know what you’re thinking: “Mike, Romans 5:12 says that all sinned. ALL. Everyone. SINNED. Past tense. And 1Cor 15:22 says we ALL (everyone) DIE in Adam.” And I know that it says that. But you know what it doesn’t say? It doesn’t say, “All 22 year-old Italian American New Jersey Residents are inherently sinful.” Daniel, I simply cannot find that in the whole Bible.
And I bet if you punch in your demographics there, that you won’t find a verse that says you’re inherently sinful either!
No need to thank me profusely. I am just a bearer of good news.
Mike ,
Where in I Cor. 15 : 22 does it say that all babies inherit sin ? That is the issue .
My point in my little satire, Ray, is that if you’re looking for those very words, you’re not going to find them. Just like you won’t find the words, “God exists in triunity.”
But that’s not how we read the Bible, nor is it how we know things. We are not to be lazy like that, and say, “If I don’t see those exact words, I don’t care what the Bible actually teaches, I’ve got a free pass because it’s just unclear.”
1 Cor 15:22 says, “In Adam all die.” Now, that has to mean something. What does it mean, Ray? The proper way to answer that is also to take into account what was said in Romans 5:12-21, because they’re speaking of the same reality. Romans 5 says that All sinned.
It’s “all,” which includes all humans: all babies, all adults, all teenagers, all hot dog vendors, all professional athletes, all moms, all dads, all non-parents, all children… ALL. When you have “all” there, you can’t say, “Because it didn’t specify ‘all babies’ he must have meant ‘All except babies.’” That’s a dishonest interaction with the text.
It’s also “sinned,” which is a past tense verb, even in the Greek, represented well in the English. It doesn’t say “all will eventually sin,” or “all sin in general.” It says “all sinned” at one point in time. You have to interact with those words if you’re coming at the text honestly with no predispositions. The proper interpretation is that all of humanity was held responsible for the sin of Adam, such that death and condemnation spread to all men, and we became sinners.
That means that when Abel is knit together in the womb, he’s a spiritually dead, condemned sinner. So were the rest of Adam’s children, of which all of us are.
If you disagree with the clear teaching of the church throughout history on this passage and its implications, interact with the text itself and say why. Say, “The text says ‘all;’ the text says ’sinned.’ Here’s what that means.” Anything else is refusal to deal honestly with what the text says.
Mike ,
Romans 5 : 18 also says that justification came to all men. So , does that mean all are saved because of the cross ? Does that mean universalism ? Or just what does it mean ? You do not believe all men are saved do you? You can read into the text all you want it to mean. As to history , there has been a debate about this issue for centuries. I do not get from the texts you give as meaning babies are born sinners because of the word all. If it is true then all are saved. “Free gift came upon all men.” I am dealing with the text honestly by saying that all does not mean that the babies are born with inherited sin.
If all have sinned means all babies are born sinners, if all means all then … Good news ! All will be saved ! All of Israel will be saved, Rom. 11: 26 . All will die but all will be made alive , I Cor. 15 : 22 . All will be changed ICor. 15 :51. All will be reconciled , Col. 1 : 20 . God wants all men to be saved I Tim . 2 : 4 . Jesus is the Savior of all men , I Tim. 4 : 10. Grace has appeared to all men, Titus 2 :11. God is not willing that anyone should perish , 2 Peter 3 : 9 . One act of righteousness brings life to all men , Rom 8 : 18. Right ? If all means all.
Ray,
By far, the biggest shortcomming of your argument is the fact that you lack scriptural support. You claim that since the verses in Romans do not specifically mention babies that it cannot possibly include babies, yet you do not have any means of proof that is contrary to this. If you do, maybe I just haven’t seen it.
You said, “If all have sinned means all babies are born sinners, if all means all then … Good news ! All will be saved !”
Could you please explain to me what you think that “all have sinned” actually does mean? You keep telling me that it doesn’t mean babies, but you have not told me what it does mean.
You said, “Then I have said that Jesus died for sinners but I have said babies are not sinners becuase they have not engaged in any kind of sin, before or after the law was given.”
So you believe that Christ did not die for babies?
Ray,
I’m pleasantly suprised. Thanks for actually dealing with what’s there. Now we can actually get somewhere.
So, you’re right: I’m not going to argue for universalism from statements like “there resulted justification of life to all men” and “all will be made alive.” Just to put my cards on the table, I’m going to argue that what those verses are saying is, “All who will be justified will be justified through this Adam,” and “All who live will live through Christ.” I also think that you can apply that to the previous usages too; i.e., “All who die, die in Adam.” Now, you don’t have to agree with me yet. I just want to be up front with where I’m coming from and where I’m going.
But anyway, I agree with you that those verses don’t teach that all people who ever lived will be saved. But I also don’t think that no one will be saved. That is, I do think some people will be saved.
So if I’m remaining consistent in the way I’m using “all,” there are at least some people wrapped up in the “all” in the “All sinned” in Rom 5 and the “all die” in 1 Cor 15. Do you agree or disagree that there are at least some people intended by these verses?
If yes, who are they? If no, please explain.
Daniel ,
Go back in my posts . I have given you scriptural reasons. Again , you dismissed them as not meaning what I said they mean about the issue of inherited sin.
All sinned are those who have sinned. I just cannot get it from scripture that babies have sinned. They are innocent. Jesus died for all those who have sinned. That is all I know the scripture teaches. All have sinned includes all who have sinned but not the babies they have not violated Gods’s will since they cannot comprehend His will , His word , the law , actaully the nature of sin. That is all I am saying.
Mike ,
When Paul writes in Romans he is writing to those who can understand. They understand they are sinners and need a Savior. I do not think he was saying that all bables that are born inherit sin . Yes because of Adam , first Eve , sin came into the world . But I do not think that at the point of conception that the fetus is held responsible for Adam’s sin. That is all I am trying to say , Mike. It may have sounded like I am just trying to be argumentative but it is where I am coming from. And no this not an emotional argument but what I conclude from decades of study in the word. I have not given lengthy posts because of time , being moderated , which is irritatiing and stops the flow of the discussion , and because I am a lousy typist.
No , I certainly do not believe in universalism and those who do will one day face a sad reality. There is a heaven and there is a hell. There will be those who are lost and those who are saved.
I have been honest and I am sincere about what I believe , just not at all eloquent.
Come on, Ray. Don’t jump ship yet! We’ve almost gotten somewhere!
Just answer my last question:
So if I’m remaining consistent in the way I’m using “all,” there are at least some people wrapped up in the “all” in the “All sinned” in Rom 5 and the “all die” in 1 Cor 15. Do you agree or disagree that there are at least some people intended by these verses?
If yes, who are they? If no, please explain.
Mike ,
I thought I answered you. What are you trying to say ? Honestly , I do not know what you want. I will remain consistent in saying that babies are not held accountable for the sin of Adam because if all means all babies are held accountable , then ok , it will all turn out ok , because then all will be made alive and there goes limited atonement and in comes universalism. What are you leading to with some are intended ? Have all sinned or have just some and will all live or will just some live ? I have already stated in the last post some will be lost and some will be saved.
Alright… here’s what’s going on.
I’m going to demonstrate how the “all” in “all sinned” is universal, and how the “all” in “all will be made alive” isn’t. On the face of it, it looks contradictory, but if we do the necessary work carefully, we can come out actually understanding what the text teaches.
So what I’m looking for from you is one word: “Agree,” or “Disagree.”
The question is, When Paul says, “All sinned” in Adam in Rom 5, is he actually saying that specific people — whether all people or just some — sinned? Does “All sinned” mean that at least one person sinned?
Don’t jump ahead. Yes or no / Agree or disagree is all we need right now.
Ray,
I do understand where you are comming from, and deeply respect the fact that you seek to base your view on scripture. I do not think that you are just making up your own beliefs, but I have not seen any scripture that says that there has ever been someone born without sin (exept Christ).
We are starting to get somewhere in this discussion, so please continue to answer my questions, and I will try to answer your’s.
1) Do you believe that Christ did not die for babies?
2) If a man is not born with a sin nature, then when does he aquire it?
Daniel and Mike ,
My last post was moderated. And it ended up in the blog does the scripture mandate home schooling . Hiarious. It all part of failing memory. Sorry . If you can go to that blog then you can find an answer.
Ray,
I read your misplaced post. Even if the verses in Matthew do mean that children will actually make up or fill the kingdom of heaven, it does not say that they will do so based on their own sinless state. No one goes to heaven because they are perfect, they go to heaven because of the perfect sacrifice. Again, to be able to continue this discussion you will need to answer my two questions above.
Daniel ,
My last post did answer your questions via the context of Romans 5.
Ray,
Your misplaced post contained more than a “Yes” or “No.” This is what I mean about interacting honestly. I’m looking at the specifics of the text and asking you what they mean in specifics. You keep on avoiding answering my questions.
Let’s put all the rhetoric aside and just answer each other’s questions when they’re presented. Every time you’ve asked me a question, I’ve copied your question into my post and replied specifically and unmistakably. For you to not do so is indeed dishonest interaction, as it ignores the issue and focuses on the non-issue(s).
Why do we go through this? Because it’s entirely impossible for two readers of the same passage of Scripture to read the passage, say it out loud as to affirm it, and then, when asked to say what it means, come up with entirely different conclusions. This is not proper, because the Bible does not mean more than one thing. God had something specific in mind when inspiring the writing of His Word. It’s our job as believers to figure out what that is.
So… let’s take it piece by piece, otherwise we’ll never get anywhere. We’re not responsible to simply “exchange ideas.” We’re responsible to know, believe, and proclaim the truth. (At least) One of us doesn’t believe the truth. It’s our joyful obligation to figure out who that is and convince him against the errant view.
So again… agree, or disagree?
Daniel ,
All I know is what Jesus said . He said in Matt. 19 : 14 that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. They have not violated God’s will. I have ansered your questions within the context of scripture, Rom. 5. If you do not want to continue the discussion , ok .
Ray,
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
I could not find in this verse what you say it contains, namely, that little children have not violated God’s will. Could you show me a verse that say that little children are sinless?
So you believe that Christ did not die for babies that die? If Christ did not die for them then they cannot go to heaven, because Christ’s death is the only means to heaven.
My second question was, “If a man is not born with a sin nature, then when does he aquire it?” To my knowledge, I have not received an answer to this question.
Daniel , If the children belong the kingdom of heaven , then they are innocent. The child does not have to be responsible for the sins of the father (Ezek. 18 :20 ) which would include Cain and Abel. I can find innocence in the paasage above just as you can find all children are guilty in the Romans passages. I cannot. As to sin nature where are those two words put together ? I know some translations speak about the sinful nature. But if the children belong to the knigdom then why would they be described as having a sin nature and since they are not held responsible for the sins of their fathers. In other words , since they are not held responsible for the sins of the father , then there goes inherited sin.
Ray,
You said, “If the children belong the kingdom of heaven , then they are innocent.”
Does this mean that I am sinless as well? According to your belief, since I belong to the kingdom of heaven, I am sinless, right? How does this work? The fact that they belong to the kingdom of heaven does not make them sinless.
You have already stated that Christ did not die for babies, and you have also admitted that Christ’s death is the only means to heaven. Based on these two beliefs (THAT YOU DO HOLD TO), you CANNOT believe that ANY baby that dies goes to heaven. This is the conclusion that your beliefs lead to, so if you do not believe this, then you had better re-evaluate your beliefs that necessarily lead to this.
You said, “The child does not have to be responsible for the sins of the father (Ezek. 18 :20 ) which would include Cain and Abel.”
I agree, Cain and Abel were not held accountable for the sin of their father, they were held accountable for their own sin nature.
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by NATURE the children of wrath, even as others.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the LAW of sin and death.
If we are not the children of wrath by nature then Ephesians 2:3 just lied. If there is no law of sin and death (as you say), then the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus did not free us from anything, and is therefore useless.
Here is a quote from John MacArthur:
“It doesn’t mean that they (infants that die) are not fallen; it doesn’t mean that they are not sinful — it does mean that God mercifully treats them as “innocent” in spite of that, and He has to exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe.”
I am not arguing whether all babies go to heaven or not, I am arguing that even if they do, it is NOT because they are sinless.
Another thought. If the verses in Matthew (that you have mentioned) mean to say that children are sinless, then why do those verses say “unless you become as one of these”? If what you are saying is true, and those verses really are saying that children are sinless, then it is impossible for anyone else to go to heaven. We cannot become sinless.
Daniel ,
Is the sin nature you speak about something we are born with or is it developed ? Also , if inherited sin is true , then does it happen at the moment of conception ? I know I have asked it but is the fetus held accountable for the sin of Adam ?
Since you agree that Cain and Abel are not accountable for the sin of Cain , then are you saying that they did not inherit sin through Adam ? Now I am confused. I have no problem with Cain and Abel being held responsible for their own sins but did not inherit sin through Adam.
Mike ,
I am being dishonest ? I do not think so. But if answering questions is the problem , then no more questions. I cannot get to the issue by your request with agree or disagree. Let us keep the discussion going by looking at each text. I tried to give you an honest insight into many of the passages in Romans 5 . And with no rhetoric. I do not know how to use rhetoric to express a belief, only the scripture. I am convinced I have been totally honest. You said you would prove by the text what all means . Then via the text prove your point. If this is not ok , I do not know what else to do to continue the discussion.
Daniel ,
Jesus said allow the chilren to come to me. They belong to the kingdom of heaven. It was not a universal statement , but He spoke about the children.
Ray,
You said, “Jesus said allow the chilren to come to me. They belong to the kingdom of heaven. It was not a universal statement , but He spoke about the children.”
Even if Jesus meant to say that all infants belong to the kingdom of heaven, He did not say that they were sinless.
You said, “Is the sin nature you speak about something we are born with or is it developed ? Also , if inherited sin is true , then does it happen at the moment of conception ?”
A nature is not developed, it is there at birth. Another way we could describe a sin nature is that it is our makeup. A bird does not have wings because it flies, it flies because it has wings. Similarly, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. The nature is there at birth (or conception, however you want to say it), it is not aquired.
You also said, “I know I have asked it but is the fetus held accountable for the sin of Adam ?”
The fetus is held accountable for its own sin nature. The sin nature was aquired because of Adam’s sin, but the nature itself is what is inherited, not the punishment for Adam’s actual sin.
You also said, “Since you agree that Cain and Abel are not accountable for the sin of Cain (I assume you meant Adam), then are you saying that they did not inherit sin through Adam ?…I have no problem with Cain and Abel being held responsible for their own sins but did not inherit sin through Adam.”
No, I am saying that they were not punished because of Adam’s act of sin, but because of their own sin nature, which was aquired from their father. Put it this way, do we aquire the nature of Christ when we are “born again”? Yes, that is obvious. Then why is it so hard to understand that we aquire the nature of Adam when we are born? If, as you say, it is not biblical that a child inherits a sin nature from the father of mankind, then why don’t you also argue that it is not biblical that a Child of God inherits a Christ-like nature from his heavenly father?
Daniel ,
I cannot , as I have said constantly , find a scripture that teaches inherited sin. We have been over this numerous times. And I have given you several scriptures to explain what I believe.
Ray,
Just because you say that a verse means what you say it means does not make it so. If you expect me to believe that those verses support your view, then you are going to have to refute my view of what they say. I say that the verses in Romans teach inherited sin, and you say they do not. Well, that is not enough. You are going to have to show WHY they do not. Just saying they do not is not how debate works. I have shown you WHY your verses do not say what you say they do, but your answer to that has been, “Well I don’t agree.” That is not enough. You are going to have to answer my points, answer my verses, answer my questions, and answer my responses to your verses. Again, your last post did not even attempt to deal with the points that I had just made.
Daniel ,
I have a number of times. In the same way just because you say a verse means something does not make it so.
Ray,
Your job here isn’t to “get to the issue.” Your job is to follow me to the issue. When I ask you questions, the way you “get to the issue” is to answer my questions. You asked me a question about how we read all and many in the text. I’m trying to answer you by taking you through the text step by step.
If you’re saying that I can’t ask questions about what the text says, then you say I can’t use the text. It’s absurd… I repeat… absurd… to say that you can only use the text but you can’t ask what the text means. The reason that you don’t understand Romans 5:12-21 is because you’re not asking questions about what the text means and then what that implies about the rest of the Bible and the rest of life. You can’t come to the text lazily. I’m asking you a simple question about what the text says. Paul says all sinned. I’m asking if that means that at least some actual people sinned. How is that not dealing with the text?
Your dishonesty is here: “Mike, show me where Romans 5 teaches that babies inherit sin from Adam. If you show me, I’ll believe. Just show me.” — “Ok, Ray. I’ll show you. Check this out. What do you think this means?” — “Mike, I can’t deal with all these questions. Just deal with the text.”
It’s not only childish, it’s crazy-making. Just answer the question, or say, “I’m not interested anymore.”
I’ve read some of the discussion between you and Daniel, Ray, and I’m seeing you do the same thing with him.
Whenever one of us has made a compelling point, you throw up your hands and give some sort of summary statement like, “I’ve said over and over I can’t find the Scripture that teaches inherited sin.” But the reason you can’t find that Scripture is because every time we present something to you, you refuse to engage with us and let us actually teach you.
This is hating instruction. This is talking for the sake of talking.
If you really want to understand this doctrine and this passage, then answer our questions when we ask. If you don’t answer the question that I posed to you, I’m going to assume that you’re not interested in understanding this, and will not respond further, in accordance with Matthew 7:6.
Daniel, I sincerely recommend that you do the same thing.
Ray,
You said, “In the same way just because you say a verse means something does not make it so.”
I know that. I have SHOWN you many times WHY the verses in Romans mean what I think they mean, and WHY the verses in Matthew DON’T mean what you think they mean. You have not SHOWN me anything, or responded to my questions, points, or my responses to your points.
1) Cain and Abel were not punished because of Adam’s act of sin, but because of their own sin nature, which was aquired from their father. Put it this way, do we aquire the nature of Christ when we are “born again”? Yes, that is obvious. Then why is it so hard to understand that we aquire the nature of Adam when we are born? If, as you say, it is not biblical that a child inherits a sin nature from the father of mankind, then why don’t you also argue that it is not biblical that a Child of God inherits a Christ-like nature from his heavenly father?
2) The fetus is held accountable for its own sin nature. The sin nature was aquired because of Adam’s sin, but the nature itself is what is inherited, not the punishment for Adam’s actual sin.
3) A nature is not developed, it is there at birth. Another way we could describe a sin nature is that it is our makeup. A bird does not have wings because it flies, it flies because it has wings. Similarly, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. The nature is there at birth (or conception, however you want to say it), it is not aquired.
4) Even if Jesus meant to say that all infants belong to the kingdom of heaven, He did not say that they were sinless.
5) If the verses in Matthew (that you have mentioned) mean to say that children are sinless, then why do those verses say “unless you become as one of these”? If what you are saying is true, and those verses really are saying that children are sinless, then it is impossible for anyone else to go to heaven. We cannot become sinless.
6) You said, “If the children belong the kingdom of heaven , then they are innocent.”
Does this mean that I am sinless as well? According to your belief, since I belong to the kingdom of heaven, I am sinless, right? How does this work? The fact that they belong to the kingdom of heaven does not make them sinless.
7) You have already stated that Christ did not die for babies, and you have also admitted that Christ’s death is the only means to heaven. Based on these two beliefs (THAT YOU DO HOLD TO), you CANNOT believe that ANY baby that dies goes to heaven. This is the conclusion that your beliefs lead to, so if you do not believe this, then you had better re-evaluate your beliefs that necessarily lead to this.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the LAW of sin and death.
If we are not the children of wrath by nature then Ephesians 2:3 just lied. If there is no law of sin and death (as you say), then the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus did not free us from anything, and is therefore useless.
9) Do you believe that Christ did not die for babies?
10) If a man is not born with a sin nature, then when does he aquire it?
These are just a few of my questions and statements that have not been answered. Don’t tell me that you have already answered them, because even if you have, I want you to answer them here and now. If your next post does not attempt to start answering these questions, then I will no longer reply on this thread, because you are not interested in finding Biblical truth.
Mike ,
Now you have once again resorted to insults and not with the text. Talk about being childish. All I said is that if questions pose a problem then just deal with the text which you still have failed to do . I am ready to hear all the instruction about many and all as much as you want. And Matt. 7 : 6 has come true , you have turned to attack me. Give the scriptural answer without having to use insult.
Daniel ,
You have decided to become demanding. OK . Wahtever makes you feel good. I have discussed this issue with you from Psalm 51 , Psalm 58 , Romans 5 and Matt. 19. If what I said is not sufficient then I guess you have chosen to bow out of the discussion.
Ray,
Did you not read what I said? Here it is again, “Don’t tell me that you have already answered them, because even if you have, I want you to answer them here and now.”
You are choosing not to continue this debate by your continued refusal to answer me. Come on Ray. Deal with my 10 points above. I don’t care if you already have. I would like you to do it AGAIN, if indeed you already have.
Here is another point that you have responded to, but have not answered (notice the difference).
11) The passage in Romans says that through Adam’s sin, death passed upon all men, because all sinned (past tense). If ALL men sinned IN ADAM, then that includes babies, right.
Please Ray, don’t just brush this off with “I have discussed this issue with you from Psalm 51 , Psalm 58 , Romans 5 and Matt. 19. If what I said is not sufficient then I guess you have chosen to bow out of the discussion.” What you said is not sufficient, because I have responded to everything you have said about these verses, and you have not gone any further. This tells me that you have ceded those points to me. Thank you. However, if that is not what you want me to think, then go back to my responses and, for goodness sake, deal with them. And yes I am being demanding. You have avoided almost every point I have made, and every question I have asked. This is frustrating, Ray.
Ray, it’s only your faulty theology that leads you to believe they’re insults.
When you answer my question, I’ll return.
Daniel ,
You are not the only one who is frustrated because I believe I have sufficiently answered you. But I will try again. Hope this will all be allowed . I will give you MY HONEST answers . I have all along .
1. Cain And Abel . I cannot find a paasage that says anything about their ” sin nature”. Or that a ” sin nature” was either acquired or inherited from their father. My understanding is that the sons are not guilty of the sins of the father , either acquired or inherited.Ezek 18 : 20 . As Chrisitans we are to become partakers of the divine nature. 2 Peter 1 : 4 . We , as we look at the glory of God are being changed more into the likeness of Jesus. 2 Cor. 3 : 18 .
2. I cannot find a scripture that to me teaches about the fetus acquiring a ” sin nature”.
3. If nature always means what you have at birth then the Gentiles must have been given one without sin since they do by nature things required by the law . Rom. 2 : 14 . But nature does not have to always mean what is given at birth.
4. Jesus did say they belong to the kingdom of heaven . If they had inherited sin then they could not . These were His words before the cross.
5. Unless you become as one of these was Jesus speaking about having the humility of a child. This is a different context from Matt. 19 .
6. No , you are not innocent. He said the children, belong to the kingdom of heaven. Those who have sinned , not children , must be born again to enter into the knigdom of God. John 3 : 3 .
7. Jesus would not have to die for babies that already belong to the kingdom of heaven. But He died for those who have participated in sin . I Cor. 15 : 1 – 5 and many other passages .
8. I never said there is not a law of sin and death. No lie to Romans 8 or Eph. 2. Be careful about saying such about scripture. The law of sin and death is the old covenant that did not have the ability to save. But the law of the Spirit of life set obedient believers free. Paul illustrates a man in his frustration of trying to be set free from the law of sin and death in Romans 7 and the declares the freedom to be found in Christ in Romans 8. I have already given you my thoughts on nature in an earlier question. Paul writes about the habitual behavior of gratifying the flesh when he mentions nature in Eph. 2.
9. Answered this question already. But no reason to die for those who already belong to the kingdom of heaven and who are not held accountable for the sins of the father.
10. I am not sure how to answer this because I cannot find these two words put together in scripture , “sin nature”. I hear this a lot but undetand it to be a part of a certian theological persuasion and language.
11. No , it would not include babies. See my answers above. In Romans 5 Paul gives a contrast , to those who have sinned and can understand , between Adam who brought sin into the world and Jesus who brought salvation. In verse 18 “all” is used for condemnation and for justification. He aslo uses ” many” in verse 15 to say many died but also many received grace . No all died and all recieved grace. Also in verse 19 to say many made sinners and many made righteous. No all sinned in either passage . He is not concerned about babies but those who have participated in sin to undertsand how grace is greater than our sin. He is not making a theological case for inherited sin.
I have alsways answered honestly.These are my honest answers to the best of my understanding of scripture.
Ray,
Thank you for answering. Now we can have a two-way conversation here. I will begin by responding to your answer to point 4, so that we don’t get too bogged down with all 11 points.
The initial point was, “Even if Jesus meant to say that all infants belong to the kingdom of heaven, He did not say that they were sinless.”
You responded by saying, “Jesus did say they belong to the kingdom of heaven . If they had inherited sin then they could not . These were His words before the cross.”
Not so. I have a sin nature, yet still belong to the kingdom of heaven. Paul had a sin nature, yet still belonged to the kingdom of heaven (Rom. 7:14-23). And before you jump on me and say, “This passage says nothing about a ’sin nature’.” I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Paul belonged to the kingdom of heaven. In your response, you said that if someone has a sin nature, then they cannot belong to the kingdom of heaven. Paul describes in this passage a law of sin. This law is said to be at war with the law of his mind. We know that the law of his mind was that “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man.” (vs. 22).” So if the other law is said to be at war with this one, then we can assume that this law is a law of sin, since that would be opposite. This law of sin, is just another name for a sin nature. So according to your response, and I’ll state it again, “if someone has a sin nature, then they cannot belong to the kingdom of heaven” since Paul had a law of sin, he could not belong to the kingdom of heaven. If you are going to apply this reasoning to infants, you are going to have to apply it to adults as well.
I will respond to your other answers later.
I just posted a response, but it is awaiting moderation.
Daniel ,
Paul in Romans 7 is writing about someone living under the law of sin and death, the old covenant. He is not describing a Christian. He is using an illustration of the frustration of living under the old covenant.
My comments about sin nature and belonging to the kingdom had reference to children.
Daniel,
I agree that Rom 7 describes Paul’s own mature Christian experience, and not an unbeliever’s. But I would ask you to be careful about your assertions of having a sin nature. I think this is a disservice that the NIV has done to us. We do not have two natures, but one. The old has gone; the new has come (2Cor 5). Once redeemed, our sin nature is killed with the old man (Rom 6), we’re reborn, and given a new nature (2Pet 1).
If we still had a sin nature we would not be free from the power of sin. As it stands, we are free from the penalty of sin and the power of sin, just not the presence of sin. And that’s because what we’re not free from is the body of this death.
Ray,
Your comment may have had reference to children, but to be consistent, you will have to apply it to adults as well.
Paul was talking of himself in Romans 7, not someone else. He says “I” in EVERY VERSE.
Now to answer to point 3.
The original points was, “A nature is not developed, it is there at birth. Another way we could describe a sin nature is that it is our makeup. A bird does not have wings because it flies, it flies because it has wings. Similarly, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. The nature is there at birth (or conception, however you want to say it), it is not aquired.”
Your answer was, “If nature always means what you have at birth then the Gentiles must have been given one without sin since they do by nature things required by the law . Rom. 2 : 14 . But nature does not have to always mean what is given at birth.”
A heathen can do something by nature that is required by the law, but Romans 2:14 says that they “are a law unto themselves.” Even the worst criminal has a sense of right and wrong. Someone who is unsaved can live an upstanding life, do good, and keep the law, but that does not make him saved. Someone with a sin nature can very easily do the things contained in the law, but it is counted as filthy rags.
Nature does not have to always mean what is given at birth? How is this? Do we not aquire the nature of Christ when we are born again? How does one develope a nature? I am sure that you would agree that we start with some sort of nature. No human or animal is devoid of any nature at all, so we must be born with some sort of nature, and it isn’t Christ’s.
Being moderated again.
Daniel ,
Matt. 19 is only about children. There is nothing said about adults.
My reasons for saying that Paul is writing as one under the law . Rom. 7 :
1. Vs 14 – Christians are not sold as a slave to sin. In chapter 6 – he wrote about being a slave to righteousness .
2. Sin living in me – vs. 17 . Chapter 6 , he writes about being dead to sin.
3, Nothing good lives in me. vs. 18 . In the Christian dwells the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit.
4.Cannot do anything good – vs. 18 . Romans 8 – Christians live by the Spirit and by the Spirit we put to death the misdeeds of the body . And a number of other passages that teach us that with divine help we can do good.
It is his way to illustrate the frustration of trying to be saved and have sanctification under the law.
Whatever may be said about defining nature, I still cannot find a passage , true to the language of the scripture , that says Christians live with a ” sin nature”.
Actually cannot find those two words in use except in the NIV , and I think it is very poor translation.
Daniel
If I take your defintion of nature to mean what is given at birth and in light of Rom . 2 : 14 , still it says, using your definition , the Gentiles , by how they were at birth , their natural tendency has always been to do what is required by the law.
Ray,
Matt. 19 is encouraging adults to be humble like children, not innocent like children. It does not say that children are sinless.
You have admitted that Christ did not die for a baby that dies. You have also admitted that one can only go to heaven if he is saved. You have also admitted that one can only be saved through Christ’s death. Therefore if a baby goes to heaven, then all of the following must be true.
1) That baby must have been saved
2) Christ must have died for that baby, since Christ’s death is the only means to heaven.
3) That baby must be a sinner, since Christ only died for sinners.
This is logic. BASED ONLY ON WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY SAID babies that go to heaven must have been sinners. This is just pure simple logic. This is not something you can logically deny.
I am being moderated AGAIN.
Daniel ,
Sorry . It is irritating and interrupts the flow of the discussion.
Daniel ,
Matt. 19 : 14 is saying to adults that children belong to the kingdom of heaven.
Christ died for sinners. For those who have actively participated in sin. Babies have not sinned and have not inherited sin .
Ray,
I would like to finish your comment.
Matt. 19 : 14 is saying to adults that children belong to the kingdom of heaven. Christ died for sinners. For those who have actively participated in sin. Babies have not sinned and have not inherited sin . So since Christ did not die for babies that die, they cannot go to heaven, because only those for whom Christ died can go to heaven.
This is the ultimate conclusion of what you believe.
Daniel ,
It must be your conclusion but nothing from what I have written.
Ray,
Here is what YOU have written.
“Only those who obey will be saved and go to heaven… Babies cannot obey. They are innocent. Christ is the way to God…He died for sinners…Babies have not sinned.”
So if Christ only died for sinners, and babies that die are not sinners, lets see, what is the conclusion? Oh, Christ did not die for babies. So if Christ did not die for babies, and Christ’s death is the only way to heaven, lets see, what is the conclusion? Oh, babies that die cannot go to heaven. This the only logical conclusion of YOUR beliefs. You say that you do not believe this conclusion, but in order for that to be true, you must agree that babies are sinners. It is one or the other, you cannot have both. They are CONTRADICTORY. To say that both are correct is like saying this: “liquid is the only way to get wet, and I am wet, but liquid did not get me wet. NO LOGIC HERE. Similarly, there is no logic in the following: “Christ’s death is the only means to heaven and Christ only died for sinners. A baby is in heaven, but he was not a sinner.” Both cannot be correct.
Daniel ,
Those are your conclusions not mine. I have with scripture given you what I believe .
Ok, Ray, tell me what YOUR conclusions are. From the two following statements, that you have previously made, tell me what YOUR conclusion is.
1) Christ only died for sinners, and babies that die are not sinners.
2) Christ did not die for babies that die, and Christ’s death is the only way to heaven.
You told me that the conlusion to point two was not that babies that die cannot go to heaven. So tell me, Ray, what is your conclusion. I just want to hear a short LOGICAL answer.