People should be careful. If you take your position too far you will have people in the kingdom of God who are neither born from above and have no need of a Saviour.
Total Depravity
- Thread starter TMS
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Sinless people don't need a Saviour. They are righteous before God apart from Christ. Yet, Jesus says no one comes to the Father apart from Him.
Jesus also said that no one enters the kingdom of heaven unless they are born from above.
How do you reconcile these truths with a young child dying sinless and going to heaven?
Well, there is no such thing as a sinless person. When you talk about a child what do you mean an infant?
There seems to be some here saying that children below a certain age do not have the wherewithal to form intention or have the volition to sin. This being the case, and on this basis, they are deemed innocent and were they to die they would make their home in heaven.
I see. Well you will have to admit even logically that an infant has not been in the world long enough to sin. However, that infant still needs Christ. I am one of those who believe a young child who is not at the age of accountability will enter heaven when they die. But the interesting thing is they still need Christ.
So tell me if an infant who has not yet been in the world long enough to sin how then are they to accept Christ into their life. It is as you know a personal choice.
As you described is indeed God's generally prescribed means of salvation. But God isn't limited to saving in this manner. One could argue that John the Baptist was saved in the womb. If so, this was not a volitional choice of John and yet he seems to have an awareness of the nearness of Christ.
No reason to limit the salvation of God, but neither is their reason to go beyond scripture to explain it. Some things are beyond finding out.
No, but I took those 2 verses and tried them out in every possible meaning and knowing that David is saved and that Peter is talking about children of saved people just appears to be as it is written. Why would a saved person see their child in Hell? It makes more sense they would see them in Heaven.
I would like to show some other Scripture.
Isaiah 7:16 Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good
^
No matter how one interprets this it does indicate there is a period in all life from natural birth before we understand what Good and Evil is.
Jesus even said that Heaven belongs to children.
^
Mark 10:14 But when Yeshua saw this, He got angry. He told them, “Let the little children come to Me! Do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
Jesus said in Matthew 18:10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father in heaven."
^
Matthew used the Greek word μικρῶν [little ones] to indicate literal children and Jesus in verse 10 claims these [little ones/children] each have Angels watching over them.
John 9:41 Yeshua said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin. But now you say, ‘We see.’ So your sin remains.”
^
This is clearly a reference to having knowledge.
Would infants/children who do not know [Good from Evil] be considered blind of the Truth of God?
Well… I don’t believe there is sufficient scripture to definitively prove either perspective. Additionally, I don’t think this topic should cause division or arguments, as it is not a salvation issue. There is ample room for you to hold your beliefs and for me to hold mine. We can both leave the discussion content.
What you are ignoring is that in Adam all died. Adam was the representative God chose to represent the human race. His failure is our failure by virtue of this representation. When he sinned, he wasn't just separated from God. He was under the wrath and condemnation of God. And all born of a woman, save Jesus, enter life under wrath and under condemnation. So whether a person sins or not, they still need God to do for them what He did for Adam. That is, they need blood shed for the remission of their sins and they need God to provide an acceptable covering for them. The covering is the righteousness of Christ and the blood is the blood shed by Christ. And salvation is the means by which God applies both to the individual personally, delivering them out of the kingdom of darkness and into the kingdom of His dear Son.
Sorry for being lazy but I copied this from another post I made:
I believe that we are not guilty of sin at birth, as a newborn is incapable of sinning. However, due to the Fall, all humanity stands guilty before God. Adam and Eve were initially in a perfect, innocent, and sinless state. They walked in the garden without realizing their nakedness. But after eating from the forbidden tree, which God had commanded them not to eat from, they lost their innocence. Before this act, they were spiritually alive and connected to God. Afterward, they became spiritually dead and severed from God
Adam and Eve were created with a perfect nature, but their disobedience in eating from the forbidden tree resulted in a fundamental change. This act introduced a flawed nature into humanity, often referred to as the 'sinful nature.' Consequently, every human born thereafter inherited this inherent flaw, a spiritual separation from God, regardless of their innocence at birth.
This separation, as described in the Bible, remained unbridged until the arrival of Jesus, referred to as the Son of Man, was born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit, and thus, was not subject to the inherited sinful nature passed down from Adam. As the second Adam, Christ came from heaven and lived a sinless life, which qualified Him as the only perfect sacrifice. His purpose was to restore the broken relationship between humanity and God. Through faith in Jesus, individuals can experience a spiritual rebirth, becoming 'born again,' and reestablish their connection with God.
It’s a subject of much debate, but there’s a perspective within Christianity which I hold to is that, due to Christ’s redemptive work, all infants are encompassed by His grace. This belief posits that if an infant were to pass away, they would be received into heaven, covered by the sacrificial act of Jesus. This view emphasizes the all-encompassing nature of Christ’s atonement as an automatic provision of grace, particularly for those
Which brings us full circle. And still doesn't deal with whether someone needs to be born from above or not.
The view you posited and believe never addresses the concerns in the original post you responded to.
Actually, I do have the Fall of Adam in mind. I am just taking what Jesus said. And Paul said because of Adam Sin and Death entered into the equation.
But look at the following verses from Paul:
13 For up until the Torah, sin was in the world; but sin does not count as sin when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses
^
So Paul is speaking about physical Death here.
Question:
Now that Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Law no longer exists like it did in the Old Covenant.
Are People now back to how it was before Moses or after Moses?
Is the Law still active?
Paul's point is that even though there was no law in place for sin to accrue to an individual's account, people were still dying. Thus, if their own sins were not causing their deaths, something else must be causing their deaths. That something else Paul ascribed to their death is the transgression of Adam.
As far as the law is concerned, the unsaved remain subject to the law. Those in Christ are no longer under the law. They have become partakers of the divine nature and walk according to the Spirit.
Not saying I disagree or anything here:
Paul said when there is no Law that sin does not count as sin.
13 For up until the Torah, sin was in the world; but sin does not count as sin when there is no law.
So are you saying the Law exists "now" and that sin counts as sin?
We know in the time of Noah the world was wicked and God destroyed them. But Paul is saying during that time because there was "no Law" that sin was not counted as sin. So for sin to count as sin there must be the Law.
So are you saying the Law exists "now" and that sin counts as sin?