Born to be Bad?
OK, I’ve got a question about babies. Are they innocent?
Let’s first take a look at a mini-’Cliff Notes’ version of a popular interpretation of sin:
Adam disobeyed God, committing the first sin (Eve was there, too, but apparently the buck stopped with Adam). The result of his disobedience was that every generation to follow Adam, every person who will ever live, will be born with the blemish of original sin. This original sin amounts to a sentence of eternal damnation. Thankfully, there is a way to remove it.
Some traditions, particularly the Roman Catholic, say that the only way for original sin to be removed is through holy baptism, resulting in the baptizing of infants, to ensure they make it to heaven. Other traditions say that baptism is merely symbolic, and that the only way to salvation is through a personal commitment to Jesus Christ, as Lord and Savior.
The Roman Catholic church has dispensed with the doctrine of limbo, saying that all children are innocent before they reach the age of reason ( seven? eight? twenty eight? ). So the Catholic view here is that babies are not damned but go to heaven.
But what is the typical Evangelical Protestant diagnosis for the child who dies before reaching the age of commitment? Do these babies and young children go to heaven or hell? I discussed this with a fellow the other day and he said that his church’s position is that they are covered by God’s grace. But aren’t we all? Is it Biblical to think that we are all born ‘bad’? And if so, is it Biblical to think that God has special exemptions for children?
I don’t mean to sound silly or trite. I think this speaks to what we believe about sin, how much of our doctrine about sin is biblical and how much of that doctrine we truly accept.
What’s your take on this?
May 4, 2008 at 1:47 am
From what I’ve read in the Bible, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God–including babies, young children, etc. But for some, such as babies or toddlers, they do not grasp this concept at such a young age. As such, it’s my belief that they cannot be held accountable for something they do not know.
When a baby dies, it’s horrible. Yet, I would tell the parents to rejoice in the fact that their child is in Heaven. Not because I want to cheer them up, but because I honestly believe that.
Ultimately, we’ll never know exactly how all of this works. Yet I’m 99.99% sure that the young ones are in Heaven if they pass away before the age of accountability, or before they can really grasp what we’re dealing with as human beings.
May 4, 2008 at 8:45 am
Thanks Ricky. But….your idea that children cannot be held accountable - is that Biblical? Some say that the ‘age of accountability is a Roman Catholic construct (although for most of it’s history it did not seem to believe this). There are plenty of Christians out there who believe that the Bible says that ‘unsaved’ children will be damned. Here’ just one:
http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/articles/article_00126_do_babies_automatically_go_to_heaven_web.htm
May 4, 2008 at 11:09 am
Hey, I checked out your link, and I agree with some of what it says. Though one thing I didn’t agree with was that they kept on repeating the fact (and truth) that people are born sinful and they used that to show that young children cannot go to Heaven when they die because they never accepted Christ. (Insert mildly sarcastic voice here) Yet it’s just too bad that all the authors of the Bible were older, and had experienced God in some way, so they DID understand the concept of righteousness/salvation.
But in my opinion that still doesn’t change the fact that a baby or a young child cannot understand their inherent sin, or their need for Christ. It’s impossible for them to grasp that concept at such a young age, in my opinion.
Although there isn’t a black and white verse that talks about this issue, I believe that God would probably not condemn a baby/young child to death/Hell for something it could not comprehend.
Some would argue that since Christ commanded us to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to everyone, that means that we should do the same to babies. Good luck, because they won’t understand what the heck you’re trying to say. You can’t force salvation. Salvation is a willful choice. In order to make it, you have to understand exactly what it means.
I don’t think babies/young children can grasp it yet, therefore I would assume with all my heart that God protects them and brings them to Heaven if they die.
May 4, 2008 at 11:09 am
And I think I just repeated myself over and over, haha, but I was in the groove of writing.
May 4, 2008 at 11:22 am
Good question, one I think many of us have wondered…
I have come down on the side of God’s sovereignty - the right of God to do as He wills among His creation. Understanding His character as Love, Compassion, Just, All-Knowing…I can leave this in His hands.
I do believe I will see the child I miscarried, as David felt sure he would see the child he lost…
May 4, 2008 at 3:30 pm
The Hebrews first introduced the concept of 12 years being the age of consent and the Catholics adopted it early on when Peter was considered their Pope or first spiritual leader. As for original sin it is no longer a factor because Jesus took care of that on the cross by fulfilling the “Law” and opening the pathway to the Father.
As far as children being saved with or without baptism, we are all saved by the grace of God and though it may not be Biblically sound to say that God takes care of all those who have not had the opportunity to know of or choose Christ for their salvation (babies and adults), I will believe this till God tells me differently. Who are we to question the mercies of God? We know Him to be just, so why can’t we simply believe He wouldn’t do better in this situation than we would. Are we going to try and say that we are more merciful than God?
May 4, 2008 at 4:00 pm
If you are looking for a definitive answer that is supported directly by the Bible, you may not find it. The Bible is not meant to answer all of our questions. Some mysteries require our faith. There is too much emphasis put on the Bible anyway. It is not meant to satisfy man’s brain and mind…but his spiritual needs within the Truth, which is the Christ.
With all of his translations and interpretations man has made the Bible unreliable. I’m not saying that it is not the Word of God or that it is not useful in our search for answers to what we might deem important questions, I am only telling you not to depend on it to explain or sanctify the Truth.
May 4, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Yes, I would tend to agree with everyone so far. My quest for Biblical affirmation for this belief is mostly academic. I tend to see scripture in the same way Net does. But many of the folks that I speak with on this site (and others) insist that we must find all of our truth about God within scripture alone. Some who I have spoken with, who hold to this conservative view of scripture, also believe in this liberal view of salvation for young children. If there is no biblical support for this, then doesn’t that present them with a theological problem?
May 4, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I would agree with what I’m hearing here, which is that the Bible is not black and white on certain issues. In these cases, we can only infer about what God thinks about it based on other scriptures that might shed some light.
Yet I do believe that we can find all of our answers in the Bible. Just because there isn’t a verse saying, “God has mercy on the innocent who never understood the message of Christ,” doesn’t mean it’s incorrect. Sometimes you have to look between the lines.
May 4, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I like what’s being said.
My simple answer would be…I don’t know.
i don’t think the Bible speaks of this specifically and it would be silly for us to try and out a state of mind or age on the allowance of God’s grace. It’s not for us to determine.
I’m with Michelle in that I leave it to God’s sovereignty. Of course, that’s a hard pill to swallow if you say that to a family that just lost their toddler. Maybe there is a lot of “doctrine” around this thought, because of feelings. How dare God allow a baby to be condemned…
May 4, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Line 4…”try to figure out a state…”
May 4, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I’m not as liberal in my understanding of scripture, I would tend to move toward Ricky’s evaluation. We may not find a specific verse, but we can count upon the overall message of God’s will being worked out and His character being holy…so many things we must leave to Him…
May 4, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Ultimately I when I’m faced with topics like these, it all comes down to a matter of faith. I simply trust God in that He is good, and everything He does is good.
It’s cool for me, because I realize how incomplete and imperfect I am. God reveals himself to be much bigger and in control of everything when I come to times like these.
Odd fact: Today at church we learned that a family in our congregation had lost their 15 month year old baby to a heart problem. The whole sermon was on how we communicate with people going through a hard time.
May 4, 2008 at 6:16 pm
For those that believe all the answers are in the Bible can anyone tell me where the people in the land of NOd came from?
May 4, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Sorry that’s Nod, where Cain found a wife.
May 4, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Yes! But…when saying this same thing I am often called on the carpet for straying outside of the text. God’s overall message is revealed throughout the entirety of scripture. This message at times seems to contradict those interpretations that, on first glance, appear to be grounded in scripture itself. Yet we have a picture of God, that although incomplete, counters any idea that he may condemn innocent children to an eternity in hell.
It seems that this picture, of a God that is more merciful to children than adults, cannot be backed up with specific scriptural references, suggesting that God’s revelation is not confined to what we find on the pages of the Bible. Assuming, of course, you cannot imagine God placing infants in hell.
May 4, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Good answer, Brent. But don’t you realize that this answer, of not ‘knowing’, is considered unsatisfactory by much of the church today? Why can’t you be certain, based upon what should be a clear understanding of scripture? Isn’t it paramount that Christians, above everyone else, have a complete and unshakable grasp of the truth?
May 4, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Christian, I believe where God speaks definitively we can stand strongly upon His word. Where He leaves a question, we do best in following His character and not our feelings. “His ways are not our ways…”
The tension in scripture to choose vs. to be chosen is there. Both teachings come out in different texts. We are given a standard by which we will be judged. The Sovereign Ruler of the Universe gets to call the shots - it’s His universe. Why do we get to choose what parts we will believe and what parts we won’t?
At some point in time we are responsible for what we have chosen to believe - only God knows when that is for each of us. Trusting in who He is, I suppose, is that childlike faith we are commended to have.
We can do topical studies on any issue revealed in scripture and get an understanding of God’s teaching on that issue. Take the word “wisdom” then go to an exhaustive concordance and read every scripture related to the topic; in a spiral, write down all that you learn. You will come away with God’s teaching on wisdom. It is revealed, you can know it.
Where He speaks we can stand. You have heard the saying, “Sitck to the main and the plain”…
May 4, 2008 at 10:05 pm
But, Michelle, for many people God has spoken definitively on what is required for salvation. That should be the end of the story. Yet many of these same people will make an exception in the case of children. These children have not satisfied the requirement. (Just as a grown man or woman who has died unrepentant and unconverted has not). God has spoken definitively; Choose Christ or…
Following God’s character and not our feelings? Can they not at times take the same course? It’s easier to stick to the ‘main and the plain’. Often we learn can learn more when we take things ‘off road’.
May 4, 2008 at 10:20 pm
If someone is speaking definitively beyond what the scriptures have revealed, then they are adding to His word. We have a complete revelation from Genesis to Revelation and are told not to add or take from what is written. That’s our responsibility - to go off road can lead us to dead ends - that’s not to say we can’t read other things. However, we have a plumbline, a map, a path He has revealed to find Him. I want Him so I will follow His way, even when it is not convenient or PC.
“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path”
May 4, 2008 at 10:58 pm
How can we be so shallow as to let our conversations degenerate into such rabble? Next you’ll be arguing how many pins fit on the head of angels. How about how to get our government to spend less on evil wars, and more on helping the plight of inner-city youth?
May 4, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I would agree with logiopath in the fact that ultimately, we’ll NEVER know how some stuff works.
The simple fact is that we know God is good, and whatever he decides is good. I’ll go until I hear differently believing that babies go to heaven if they die.
But what’s the point if all of us will have the same level of knowledge about an issue? Is there a point to debating something we’ll never be able to understand?
May 4, 2008 at 11:15 pm
While I have never found a passage that says the young and mentally unable to comprehend the Gospel (which is accessible to children according to Christ’s own words) go to heaven if they die without professing Christ, I do believe you will find passages where biblical characters believed it. If David believed he would see his died infant child I think those who have lost a child can believe the same.
John MacArthur’s book “Safe in the Arms of God: Truth from Heaven About the Death of a Child” (http://www.amazon.com/Safe-Arms-God-Truth-Heaven/dp/078526343
help me to think through the issue. The only area I still need to think through is my theology of salvation and sin as it relates to this topic of the death of those unable to understand the Gospel of Christ.
May 5, 2008 at 2:11 am
All are born with the stain of sin, but how can a baby be held accountable for its actions when it is not aware of choices being either ‘good’ or ‘bad?’
I think the prophet Isaiah may address it in a passage in which the LORD speaks of Messiah (chapter 7):
14. Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.
16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.
I don’t believe dead children of an unaccountable age (which only GOD can discern) are in heaven just because it’s PC or the ‘nice’ thing to say, but because it is quite clear in the Holy Bible that we are damned eternally for rejecting GOD and HIS Son Jesus the Christ.
How can a child who does not yet know how to make decisions based on consequences, choose to acknowledge GOD or choose to do the things the LORD abhors?
I feel like this goes back to the apostle Paul who wrote of the necessity of the law. How sin and law are connected because we don’t know we have sinned unless there is some law that tells us what we have done (or thought) is a sin.
It’s the same with a child, isn’t it? He doesn’t he/she know it’s wrong to take that candy bar off the shelf and start eating it unless someone tells him that it is wrong? When he grasps this concept, of the things he should or should not do and what kind of consequences may follow, he will be held accountable for his actions. Think also of children who put all kinds of things in their mouths or who unwittingly put themselves in danger (by touching hot things, straying near stairs, the street, etc.)
With Adam and Eve, who were both punished, they chose to doubt GOD and forsook HIS word in order to please the flesh. HE gave them a law: do not eat of the tree of… HE explained the consequence: You will die if you eat of the tree of…
Temptation entered and Eve (and Adam, too, for I’m sure knew what the fruit looked like) chose to believe the Devil, who basically insisted that GOD was a liar and only wanted to keep them from becoming ‘little gods.’
May 5, 2008 at 6:23 am
Welcome Wesley and Lavrai.
Michelle, those lines at the end of Revelation, do they apply to all scripture? Revelation just happens to have been placed at the end of our Bible - we know that it is not always chronological nor was John of Patmos necessarily aware of the other NT writings. Besides, this advice was already ignored long, long ago, as Net pointed out.
Welcome back, Bruce (logiopath). You guys may not be familiar with Bruce’s tactics. He just LOvES arguing about theological minutiae - he’s devoted his life to it.
That being said, he also knows that we have spent considerable time debating those very points that he brings up. John McArthur (as Wesley has shown) thinks this is worth discussing as well.
But… I think that this type of talk directly effects the way in which the church goes about serving the kingdom, much of which has to do with devoting “less on evil wars, and more on helping the plight of inner-city youth”.
I have heard more than a few people suggest that since the world is born depraved, what more can we expect of it; the challenged youth of our inner cities - all they need is an exposure to the Gospel and their problems would be on the way to solving themselves. This removes most of our own responsibilities to seek justice here and places them elsewhere (perhaps at the feet of “the government”?).
May 5, 2008 at 8:39 am
I’m a bit surprised at this post Chris. I think you’ve made it pretty clear that in your theology you:
- Do not believe in hell
- Do no believe people are ’sent’ or condemned to hell
- It’s not our place to judge someones ‘destination’
- It is a harmful practice to sparate the ’saved’ from the ‘unsaved’
So, this article is either a sincere departure from your previous beliefs and you are truly going through a change in outlook (doubtful). Or, this is merely an exercise in reverse evangelism… baitng people here so you can explain to them why they’re wrong…. 8o
This is sort of a baiting, telling comment:
… unless I misread your tone of condecension and sarcasm… which is always possible.
May 5, 2008 at 10:48 am
“Michelle, those lines at the end of Revelation, do they apply to all scripture? Revelation just happens to have been placed at the end of our Bible - we know that it is not always chronological nor was John of Patmos necessarily aware of the other NT writings. Besides, this advice was already ignored long, long ago, as Net pointed out.”
John of Patmos, unaware?? He has referenced prophecies from the major and minor prophets…Christian, come on
…cross-references (Deut. 4:2; 12:32 and Proverbs 30:6). Then add to those references all the other words we have concerning His word never ending…from the time of Moses, through Solomon’s reign, to the end of the age (considering the testimony of Revelation) the word is the same. It matters not what society has chosen to do…His word stands forever.
We have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. ~2 Peter 1:19-21
I won’t continue to “take the bait”…
May 5, 2008 at 11:13 am
Christian,
I agree with Michelle’s comment: I believe where God speaks definitively we can stand strongly upon His word. Where He leaves a question, we do best in following His character and not our feelings. “His ways are not our ways…”
The tension in scripture to choose vs. to be chosen is there. Both teachings come out in different texts. We are given a standard by which we will be judged. The Sovereign Ruler of the Universe gets to call the shots - it’s His universe. Why do we get to choose what parts we will believe and what parts we won’t?
God is sovereign over all - even those who don’t believe in sin and hell. I accept that, 1) His ways are not our ways, 2) Scripture contains all that is sufficient for salvation and a godly life, 3) Scripture does not contain all there is to know about God and His ways.
You imply that evangelicals, or at least toothless fundies, believe that if it’s not in the Bible, Christians should be opposed to it. Some may hold to that, but such a position discounts the concept of natural revelation. (Natural revelation does not supercede special revelation, though.)
To a point, I would second Buddy’s notion that your question makes it seem like you’re trolling for conflict.
May 5, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Not conflict - conversation. Sorry if I have come across this way, although I understand that this topic is controversial.
I stated earlier that my interest here was primarily academic. As Buddy said, most of you are aware of where I personally stand on the doctrine of hell. I am constantly coming up against the argument that if it is not found in the Bible then it is unfounded spiritually (I don’t know if they were ‘fundies’ - toothless or otherwise
) I can’t find Biblical support for the uncomfortable doctrine of hell, so I was wondering about any Biblical support for the comforting idea that ‘innocents’ may exist and if so that they are shown particular mercy.
And Buddy, I wasn’t being sarcastic or condescending with Brent - I am interested particularly on what he thinks about this as I know that he has heard precisely those arguments concerning other issues on his blog.
Michelle- you must have missed what I said; he was likely unaware of the NT writings. Of course he was very knowledgeable of the OT. And you are correct about paying attention to the words of the prophets. They stand just as strongly today, but more often they convict the Church itself.
I personally agree that we cannot know all the ways of God. Steve says that “Scripture contains all that is sufficient for salvation and a godly life”, and I agree. But to say that it contains all that is sufficient does not mean that it holds everything that is sufficient.
I don’t see why this line of inquiry would upset people. That’s not the intent. I am just wondering if there is maybe a little inconsitency with the idea of Sola Scriptura.
May 5, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I believe that we have not been given the answer to this question on purpose.
May 5, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Oh
I missed it…my bad.
I think we’ve talked about this before…John of Patmos vs. John the Apostle. It certainly would depend upon the identity of John. But, if he is John the Apostle, as I believe, then he would have been quite aware of the letters and gospels previously written. It is a matter of debate, I plead Polycarp and Irenaeus. “Before Eusebius there exists no statement about a second John in Asia.” Eusebius had his motive (not liking the book of Revelation) for not believing they were the same, however, he came a bit too late for me.
Said I wouldn’t take the bait, and look what I went and did…
May 6, 2008 at 12:36 am
Netprophet - people of the land of Nod? How about Gen 6:2-4 Sons of God daughters of man?
Have not read or fully understood sufficient of the Bible to have all the answers yet But here’s what i do know so far.
I was born guiltless - but possibly with a predilection to lean more toward my own sin than towards Christ. Certainly the World, including my father and mother who were less than perfect ( but by no means evil ), had more of an influence upon my development and sense of ’self’ than did my Spirit.
I became are of what was considered by others close to me to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ from an early age. I did not always choose to do only what was ‘good’.
It took me far longer to ‘get’ jesus and what He was all about and even now i have got it - i fail to follow Him Fully.
Some would believe this condemns me to Hell.
I would say they are right and i am living in it still - One day i hope to be able to See His Kingdom and choose to only ever Live in it - through His Grace.
I try not to listen to any ‘Church’ Teachings, interpretations - but to all those that Come directly from Him Above down to me.
If you have questions God has the answers - Ask and ye shall receive. Asking man for their version of Truth is unlikely to help you find the answers as well as He can.
He gave us the Bible as we see it today - via man’s hand and also via man’s (Church) interpretations. i think it best if we seek our own answers from Him with whatever things he sees fit to bring to us to help us find His Truth.
<B
May 6, 2008 at 6:41 am
Maybe Jesus’ statement, “let the little children come to me,” could shed some light on this. I think Jesus was saying this for perhaps a variety of reasons, but maybe at least one of those was the fact that children dont have something hindering them and keeping them away from God. I know this is in now way definitive, but perhaps it helps us have an understanding of how God views children.
I know it is not exactly on the same lines but the debate between Calvinist and Armenians might shed some light on this too. Here is a great link from one of my professors that might help.
http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/election-common-ground-between-arminians-and-calvinists/
On another note, Christian, I found a way to make my blog work in China. It only took me eight months to get around the Great Firewall of China, as we have come to call it, but I finally have. Now I can post regularly and hopefully join the lively discussions here more often.
Blessings and Shalom!!!
May 6, 2008 at 7:55 am
Do you really believe Paul was saying people (including himself) was born in sin?
Maybe he was simply lamenting the fact that he believed his sin was an inevitible choice. Remember, he was a Pharisee, and as such, was steeped in ways to feel guilty (hmm. sounds like modern evangelicals).
Was Locke (Tabula Rasa) right, or Jung (collective unconscious) right?
were we born clean, as Locke argues or with the data of our ancestors stamped on our souls?
Are we making ethical choices, or are we actually by our nature born with a metaphysical stain?
May 6, 2008 at 11:58 am
Good to hear from you Rogue, I didn’t realize that you were still in China. Is this going to be permanent?
Jesus would seem to suggest that their are superior qualities to children. Oh, and thanks for that link.
“Are we making ethical choices, or are we actually by our nature born with a metaphysical stain?”
That seems to sum up this question.
May 6, 2008 at 11:58 am
Love thanks for the reference of the sons of God, which I understand to be the fallen angels of Satin’s decent and the daughters of man meaning the male and female God created on the earth on the 6th day before building the garden of Eden where he created Adam and then Eve from Adam’s rib. Is this correct? If so, thank you for answering my question and filling in a gap I hadn’t considered. Actually several gaps.
May 6, 2008 at 12:09 pm
We have been living here for the past 8 months but we will only be here about another 2 1/2 months. I got accepted to seminary, proof that they will let anyone in, and I plan to go back and start classes in August.
May 6, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“I was wondering about any Biblical support for the comforting idea that “innocents’ may exist and if so that are shown particular mercy.”
Christian,
There are others that were shown “particular mercy” throughout the Old Testament and some in the New, like Enoch for one. If God chooses to bypass the requirements for children for whatever reason his chooses, He has shown that He can and will because he is God. Some work in the field for the whole day and some for just an hour but He pays them the same wage.
May 6, 2008 at 12:44 pm
hmmmm…
May 6, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Hi. I was born in this well that we call bible. It was architectured to capture people and hold them captive in there. In some point in my life I found myself outside of this well. I saw other different wells around. Anybody who’s been out of his well will agree that the sky is bigger than the mouth of a well. Anyway, it’s the same sky that each people who stayed put inside their wells see when they look up. Same God unless you think there is many of them.
Out in the world, people are always guided by what they’ve learned in their old wells. They were born or made there, maybe a little bit altered today. That’s for sure.
Visiting home and looking inside, sometimes could be amusing. I’m not going to spoil anybody’s happiness or contentment so except for the question posed I’m not going to say what I think are funny or questionable in there.
Unborn and Toddlers as automatic sinners?
Arguing with feet inside the well, it must have been God himself who told Adam and Eve about that being the consequence of their disobedience. Otherwise everything was a presumption or perception. And they passed the story on throughout all ages until it got to you and me through the line of Abraham, Moses, and Christ.
[Other descendants of the first couple became Europeans, Africans, Asians, Mesoamericans and others. Its must be a long story but they have forgotten or never heard of it until reunited.]
Looking at the world today, the world no longer believes in that doctrine. Inside the Christian well itself you can see disagreements. Unborn and toddlers as automatic sinners is true only as far as some people inside the well. Today, every child born is baptized. It’s more on keeping with religious tradition than belief in man’s rationalization behind his every action, in this case the ritual called baptism.
State makes laws. Laws, every one of them, are based on morality of the land. Social morality - what is right and what is wrong - stemmed from religion.
The sin or crime of Juan is not a sin or crime of Pedro unless Juan and Pedro conspired to commit that sin or crime. There being a conspiracy, the act of Juan is an act of Pedro. [Adam and Eve were both guilty of ‘eating’ the apple] But the crime, thus the liability, of both Juan and Pedro is not crime and liability of those outside the conspiracy, their children for example. [But when Juan and Pedro were punished sure, their families suffered too.]
Society believes that their families are innocent and non-liable. Do you think that we should revert to the bible and change the present law? Imprison the wives and children of Juan and Pedro, too?
May 7, 2008 at 7:54 am
Kumbya, Kumbaya, oh GodOfYourUnderstanding, Kumbaya…
Bwwaaahhaaaaaaa haaa haaaaa!!!!
May 7, 2008 at 8:08 am
Well…. that’s a deep subject
AAAHHHH hahhahhah [snort] bwahhahh hhahhha!!!
May 7, 2008 at 10:03 am
Welcome, Rod. Thanks for the insight. You make a couple of good points. The idea of society not holding descendants accountable for the actions of their ancestors reminds me of the Jubilee year. God ordained that the Jews should forgive family every 50 years.
May 7, 2008 at 11:11 am
I am constantly coming up against the argument that if it is not found in the Bible then it is unfounded spiritually (I don’t know if they were ‘fundies’ - toothless or otherwise). I can’t find Biblical support for the uncomfortable doctrine of hell, so I was wondering about any Biblical support for the comforting idea that ‘innocents’ may exist and if so that they are shown particular mercy.
Two points: first, I agree that there is a lot of spiritualism that is not found in Scripture, and a lot of it is hooey (that’s a theological term, from the Greek, I think). Christian, are you referring to general/natural revelation? I think not. You seem to be implying that any extra-Biblical spirituality is as valid as Biblical. I’ll accept your point if you’re talking about the natural revelation of God in His creation. Or are you saying that there are good principles in other religions/spiritualities? Mormons are great family people and Buddhists revere family and ‘filial piety’ and Muslims love their kids. Are you equating them all.
That leads to the second point. We’ve been over this ground before, but I’ll be direct: if you don’t find ‘biblical support for the uncomfortable notion of hell’ then you’re not looking. Christ spoke of hell more than any other biblical figure. (JollyBlogger has an interesting take on it here.) You’re right, though, in implying that if there is no hell, the notion of innocence or guilt is moot. If there is no hell, or eternal punishment for rejecting God, then heaven, salvation, innocence and guilt become meaningless terms. If all are ’saved’ there has to be something they are saved from. You can’t have it both ways.
May 7, 2008 at 12:15 pm
“Christ spoke of hell ”
Nice link, nice post. But Jesus still did not speak of ‘hell’ - it is a word derived from Northern European mythology. Jesus did warned of other dire predicaments, using other very strong, yet different words. Some of his words have been translated into ‘hell’ - just as some of the words in Job have at times been translated into ‘hell’ and other times into ‘the grave’. At no time are these concepts ever fleshed out. We can just be sure that it is not a desirable outcome for anyone.
Saying that there is no place called ‘hell’ does not rule out the idea of punishment, eternal or otherwise (what does eternity mean, anyway?) Salvation, guilt, innocence are not ideas that need to have the threat of one particular concept of punishment as their foundation. And there is far from a consensus on what ‘heaven’ means as well. You may as well say that unless we can come to an agreement on what ‘heaven’ actually is then salvation also becomes meaningless.
My point in asking these questions really has nothing to do with the validity of other faiths. I am curious as to how people see the concept of ‘original sin’ and whether they truly believe what their doctrines say about it or is there some equivocating going on. There seems to be a willingness on the part of many people to unhesitatingly say that unless one makes a deliberate choice for Christ then he or she is doomed (to hell or otherwise). Yet there also seems to be a tendency to see some exceptions on the part of children and when this tendency is confronted the response often is that this is something we shouldn’t be overly concerned with; that though is is an unsolvable mystery with no real scriptural support it just somehow ‘feels’ right that God would not damn them.
May 7, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I offer this scripture, probably one of the most used verses in the Bible on the topic of sin:
“All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”
Note the word “all.” It doesn’t say some, or most, or a few, it says all have sinned. Everyone, you and me, have sinned and missed the mark.
What more evidence do we need for the topic of original sin or sin in general?
May 7, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Chris,
Would you have a problem if it was just settled that children are just condemned because scripture isn’t specific?
My point is what’s wrong with “I don’t know”? Why do we (moderns) need this answered? Why do we constantly insist on building a box for God?
We need to let it go and just relax in “I don’t know”…
May 7, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Ricky - to say that all have sinned implies a personal action. To be born with what Bruce called a metaphysical stain (original sin) is something completely different. No choice involved.
Buddy - I love this. Isn’t this what I have been saying for some time? We are so ‘definite’ about so many things. How about this; would you have a problem if it was settled that when it comes to anyone being saved, we just don’t know as well?
(You have to remember - I’m not worried about babies in hell. Or Muslims, Buddhists or Mormons)
May 7, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Hmmm… I been saying it a long time… remember the pendulum…?
No of course not… But remember, there’s plenty we do know. We just don’t know everything. Scripture talks about a lot, that cannot be ignored.
May 7, 2008 at 4:06 pm
In other words, there’s a lot left out that we can only speculate about…. better to say “I don’t know” about those things. There are others that are clear, better to not contradict those.
May 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm
would you have a problem if it was settled that when it comes to anyone being saved, we just don’t know as well?
I think we’re getting to the heart of it. There are things that we do know (i.e., all have sinned, Christ is necessary for salvation, God desires that all would come to Him, God will judge the just and unjust) and things we don’t know (i.e., the ‘mechanism’ of salvation, what heaven looks like, where socks go in the dryer) and things that can be inferred from God’s special or general revelation.
It’s arrogant to think that We can or should know all there is to know about God. One of my favorite OT passages is God putting the smackdown on Job. “Were you there when I created the universe? Then shut up and deal with it.”
Christian, I think your point is that where there is no certainty, we tend to infer and then claim certainty. There’s a thin line between that position and not seeing the certainty that is there.
May 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Yeah I interpret that verse I quoted as supporting original sin. It makes logical sense to me. “All” refers to all humans, past or future from what I can tell.
But I do agree with Buddy about the fact that some stuff we don’t know, and will probably never know. It’s better to leave them alone and make sure we’re grounded in what we do know.
May 7, 2008 at 6:13 pm
And to my point, I believe we do not know because it is best that we do not know.
May 7, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Yeah…what Ric said.
May 7, 2008 at 7:11 pm
That sin of the fathers is sin of the entire family to include the unborn, was in fact a belief not limited to Christians during slave societies. When a kingdom fell, everything and everyone is spoil of war. When a guy becomes disgraced, his wife and his children may suffer slavery too.
May 7, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Amen to Buddy, Steve, Ric (and back up Amens for Michelle and Ricky : ) ) And Rod makes a good point, too. There have been (and I think still are) situations where this ‘definite’ certitude has resulted in actions that would not seem to fit into God’s over all plan of justice, mercy and humility.
May 7, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Blessed be those who haven’t seen but believe!
May 13, 2008 at 2:23 am
Chris - coming at this from a more secular perspective for a moment ( it may help to understand where i am coming from on a range of my ‘ego’ issues)
From the time we are formed as living human beings we begin to ‘conform’ to the world - this is essential for our survival as an infant. Our spiritual ‘guidance’ systems do not compare for the urgency of food, shelter, waste disposal etc etc.
We then form ways of learning and understanding our immmediate enviornment and our own bodiy and thought. We learn from similarly imperfect living beings who early on do not consider our spiritual body to be as important as our physical one.
This to me is the formation of a child’s sin.
We become this sinful thing more concerned with our self than with God.
In Adulthood or perhaps before for some lucky few, we can begin correcting this imbalance in our lives.
We never ever ‘catch up in a great majority of cases.
Our pre-learning prevents this.
Unless we take positive steps to unlearn what we learned as we were being fully formed.
Most don’t.
Some think God does this for us - He doesn’t!
We can receive His Grace - this does not remove all our many imperfections from out of our mind and body. it merely gives us an alternative - few of us then choose only to live in/from that alternative.
Make any sense?
<B
May 13, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Love, so are you saying that “original sin” is another way we describe those naturally inherent animal tendencies that we have for benefiting ourselves even at the expense of others?
May 13, 2008 at 12:34 pm
We can receive His Grace - this does not remove all our many imperfections from out of our mind and body. it merely gives us an alternative - few of us then choose only to live in/from that alternative.
“original sin” is another way we describe those naturally inherent animal tendencies that we have for benefiting ourselves even at the expense of others
I see how you could come to those conclusions if you come at it from a strictly secular view.
Love - You are right about receiving grace, but what about sanctification? There’s a working of the Holy Spirit in a believer apart from our own actions that serves to clean house. (Don’t ask me if it can work completely independent of our will. That’s a question for a theologian.) I’m not the same person I was before I became a believer. Some of my desires and inclinations to sin just went away. I no longer had a desire to drink excessively or use abusive language. though I still struggle in other areas. Not everyone will get the same relief from the same sins (your mileage may vary), but santification is real.
You make it sound as if ‘having God’ just gives an alternative to our past behaviors.
May 14, 2008 at 11:55 am
Sanctification; personally I see this as the life long process of moving closer to God through a focus on Christ. I think the Holy Spirit works in the non-believer as well ( I can only attribute the Spirit as to what led me in on my long journey to Christ). I too am not the same person I was before I became a believer. But I am also not the same person I was after conversion and not the same one I was last year. Sanctification. Ongoing and never ending.
May 14, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Agreed. How much is the working of the Holy Spirit and how much is our effort to be people people?
May 14, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Oops. Should read “to be better people”.
May 14, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Good question (was it rhetorical?) I think it is cooperative venture - the working of the spirit in that also requires a trust on our part - a willingness to be dependent upon God and not try so much to be in control. I don’t think trying to be ‘better people’ by using nothing but our own determination will often be successful, and even so it is not enough. In order to be fulfilled human beings I think we must allow God to dwell in us as we dwell in him. (Yes, I often come down on this ‘religious’ type of speaking -it too often falls on deaf ears - but I can’t think of a better way of putting it.)
May 17, 2008 at 10:50 am
If this has been covered, I apologize.
Is it Biblical to think that we are all born ‘bad’?
If we are born in sin or “born bad”, does that mean God is cranking out 100% defective product at the baby factory? I thought God is perfect in all things?
In response to Ricky’s statement,
“All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”
Note the word “all.” It doesn’t say some, or most, or a few, it says all have sinned. Everyone, you and me, have sinned and missed the mark.
What more evidence do we need for the topic of original sin or sin in general?
How shall we address “Thou Shalt Not Kill”?
It doesn’t say “Thou Shalt Not Kill except for ticks, fleas and roaches”.
Do I sin everytime I flush a tick down the toilet? When I step on a cockroach? When I spray for fleas? And do these pests go to Heaven? (I don’t really need an answer to the last question!!)
I like believing the God is love and through that faith, I believe he takes very good care of our babies. It is possible, I think, to abandon everything in the Bible except for God Is Love. If we operate on that one thing, all else falls into line.
What happens when Jews die? God is love.
What happens when Catholics die? God is love.
What happens when babies die? God is love.
What happens when Muslims die? God is love.
What happens when sinners die? God is love.
What happens when I sneak out of my room after curfew to go party and my parents catch me? Parents are love but there may be a harsh punishment!
And now on to Wine In The Woods!
May 17, 2008 at 5:22 pm
You’re off? On a Saturday? And you didn’t think of inviting me to Wine in the Woods?
May 17, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I was an invited guest and I only spent an hour there before going to work. You’re right though, we should have made plans!
May 18, 2008 at 8:39 am
Too bad you couldn’t stay longer. Resigned to the fact that we had missed the festival we sat down to watch the Preakness, which holds little interest for us as we had attended that drunken orgy a few times in the distant past.
But what a horse race! That Big Brown was like a Ferrari among Corvettes. Absolutely amazing reserves of speed. Fantastic!
May 24, 2008 at 4:51 am
[...] what about the innocents? That the sin of the father is a sin of his family to include the unborn? Like, the conspiracy of Adam and Eve is also the conspiracy of all mankind? Toddlers and unborn as [...]
May 24, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I google about sin and picked this site. I would like to note that despite all our wrong doings, and searchings and heartfelt crys…we cannot change the simple fact that we, who are in Christ, no longer are dealing with sin but weakness. I know what is preached, taught, read in the bible…but we forget to read the other stuff. If someone tells you something long enough you believe it, be it good or bad. If Christ tells me long enough that he has set me free, because of love and sacrifice, because he came looking for me down through the centuries and God the Father was desiring me that I am no longer indept to him but free, that I was now dealing with weakness and consequences…who would I believe, someone from this world who’s been taught to preach about certain things…someone who stays within the box or Christ? You tell me we talk to much about sin? I say we do, its an old subject that needs to be laid to rest…we are no longer slaves, whom the son sets free is free in deed. We are not sinners, but saints…who is being glorified by saying we are sinners saved? Is God, when he does something does he do it half way…isn’t it man that has the problem with truth? Forgive me, I’m tired and I need to know if someone out there has had an awakening to this as well…I am not looking for arguments, but reasonable answers.
May 26, 2008 at 10:46 am
Kelly, is it simply that you are struggling with ‘religion’? Because if so, I can sympathize. I think if most people are honest they do not struggle so much with what God tells them but with the way that religious ‘leaders’ have reworked his message to line up with their own world views.
That’s why I like that quote of John Adam’s I placed somewhere on this page; “Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?” I think this question is as pertinent today as it was 200 and 2000 years ago. Jesus tried to cut through the religious dross of his time, and I think he was very successful at it. But his words are the enemy of religious man (which we all tend to be) and religion as been very successful in supplanting God with convoluted and ego satisfying doctrines and dogmas.
We all bring our own very personal perspectives to how we encounter God. I don’t think we need to be told to abide by the way of other’s, just because they have become traditional.
May 26, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Sounds to me after reviewing this thread, that original sin is a result of the conspiracy of Adam and Eve. All are born in sin because of them. So what is that original sin. I doubt it’s only the eating of an apple, and I don’t think knowledge of good and evil can actually be contained in an apple. (Or whatever produce came from the tree). Hmmmmmm. So do you think possible that original sin could also be called the domestication of the human being. Could that be why little ones are deemed innocent, they have not been fully domesticated. I only ponder……and maybe throw a monkey wrench for enjoyment.
May 26, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Good point, no name. I have often thought of man’s ‘advances’ through technology and science has encouraged him to think of himself as being that much more ‘independant’. Sophisticated man is arrogant man.
Primitive and simple man, living ‘dangerously’ close to God’s creation has a greater respect for and understanding of the Creator.
May 29, 2008 at 3:22 am
Religions out there need to bring morality closer and understandable to present day generations. I have seen young people beating it out when they saw preachers were coming for the bible study. They see preachers as weirdos talking about them as sinners before they were born!
[Probably many of them relate to themselves like brand new PCs with blank drives the day they were born! Like medicines in the shelves, some literatures could be expired or have ceased to be potent and useful. They have to be modified to deal with the present.]
There’s no end to religion and God
Moses came three thousand years before Christ who came two thousand years before us. Society has evolved much in the last five thousand years. Between static and modern minds exists a widening communication gap.
Religious institutions have only two choices: Evolve with society or fade out to extinction, replaced by consistent ones.