Are Infants Really Born Sinless?

[Jermyn Davidson]

I've never thought that the Bible teaches sinless infants.

In the case of infant death, I have heard it taught that if the parent(s) are saved, then the child is saved. If the parents aren't saved, then that child is "in the Hands of a Just God," or some other phrase to the affect.

[Jacob's Ladder]

Praxeas,

I've been busy with life, I haven't forgot about our little dialog here. I'll address some of your post in a few minutes. First I'm going to address other poster's comments.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I didn't say it did. It does insinuate their angels always see the fact of God. That is what I said


Im sorry but THIS deserves a

Try reading it again...first of all Mark only goes up to chapter 16...so where you get Mark 18 is anyone's guess

Second of all you broke one of the first rules of interpretation, ignoring the context or taking a verse out of context.

If you read the context you'd see how Jesus was speaking NOT of hsi disciples but of children

Mat 18:2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them
Mat 18:3 and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:5 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me,
Mat 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mat 18:7 "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!
Mat 18:8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.
Mat 18:9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.
Mat 18:10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.


No he was referring to children.. He picked a child up and kept referring to the child..see above in red

[Jacob's Ladder]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Does this mean that babies die only because of what Adam did?

Originally Posted by SRM

Man dies {naturally} because what He was made of...not because of what Adam did.

Humanity does die because of Adam's sin. Due to Adam's acts, death entered the world through sin.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

seems I don't see your sin nature in the verse.

LOL... he cursed the ground and it would be against us. The law was knowledge yet also a curse. It was blessing and also a curse. LOL "for man's sake" LOL It was a curse against man. I find it funny you say he did not "curse man" YET you beleive we have a sin nature.

The fact is God did not curse man. And sin nature is not a curse from God that is a strawman.

For man's sake means in the place of man, as though ground stood for man, and because it would affect man. Cursing something to affect man is far different than cursing man.

Man is cursed with death which is external cursing.

Man was not "cursed" with death. Death was the outcome of disobedience, like man walking into death, not being cursed with it. You have all these nuances to the statements made int he bible which nuances the bible never relates. Same with your Romans 5 slant. Romans 5 simply said Adam's act made us sinners. It did not say it made us susceptible to BECOME sinners.

The ground was cursed which is a external cursing. Man is cursed with things that would bring question to him that was not the norm of his previous existance. That is knowledge.

Wrong. It was not a cursing from God like you are trying to make it out to be.

Adam faced his conditions which is new knowledge/trials he would have to deal with NOT BEING PROVIDED FOR. The knowledge of hunger, thirst, pain, death, love, hate in relation to his NEW enviroment apart from his original existance. All of this is application of situations to his emotions. Thus he brought THAT TO US! Thus knowledge of his circumstance, brings interaction with who he is and who God wants him to be. Having to provide, brings a certain knowledge of depravity he would have which would result in fear and still need to have faith. The counter to "faith" is other knowledge and possibility. This is basic natural law.

We are not in Christ unless we obey. CLEAR SCRIPTURE! Of course we are "righteous" in him. We are not IN HIM UNLESS WE OBEY!

You can keep trying to put your two cents' worth into the reason why we are righteous, but I reject it. Yes we must obey. But our act does not award us righteousness. His act awarded us righteousness. Your view is like saying our approach to the table to eat food is more cause for the food in our bellies than the one who made the food and prepared the table. It is self seeking to glory in self and is ultimately self-righteousness.

lol We cannot be considered righteous unless we obey and we cannot be considered righteous due to sin unless we follow him and his blood cleanses us from our sin. TWO ASPECTS! You make it a forensic righteousness only and that misses the WHOLE of what scripture teaches.

No, you are preaching self-righteousness and emphasizing our obedience. Our obedience only allows Him to give us righteousness, but you are making it into a work directly responsible for making us righteous, and THAT is what the bible is totally against. Pelagianism is heresy! Sorry. Is is pharisaism.

Two different aspects see above. Christ righteousness brought forth the provision of right standing in him in which justice is done toward our sin through repentance. We are not IN HIM unless we obey which is true repentance..

Our obedience to get in Christ is, again, no greater than walking up to the table to eat the food provided for us. The work to provide the food for us is what the preparer accomplished and he deserves the glory. You are trying to make the approach the element worthy of glory instead.

Sorry, I do not buy that pharisaical distortion.

[SRM]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I've never thought that the Bible teaches sinless infants.

In the case of infant death, I have heard it taught that if the parent(s) are saved, then the child is saved. If the parents aren't saved, then that child is "in the Hands of a Just God," or some other phrase to the affect.

soounds like we came from the same school..

[Jacob's Ladder]

Originally Posted by acerrak

nope. man was a everlasting being until they sinned. Death never would have came in. God made man, and God doesnt make man with sin already in it., That would be saying God creates sin.

We die because of the sinful nature we all develop as we grow.


Jesus was made of the same stuff we are.. an d he didnt die because of sin, He chose to die to lay his life down for others sin out of love

God created ONE man, Adam.

Adam was perfect until he sinned. Civilization came out of a sinful couple, Adam and Eve.

[mfblume]

I believe infants are not responsible for sin since they have not come to the age of understanding and self consciousness and ability to know the difference between right and wrong. ALL infants go to be with God at their deaths. ALL OF THEM, whether children of sinners or saints. IMHO.

I think Romans 7:9 implies this. Paul meant that he had not come to the age of understanding until Law came. Jews call it BAR MITZVAH. A child is not responsible for Law. Now, Jews made a law out of it by saying the age is 12 - 13. I do not think we can dictate that. It varies from child to child, and is earlier than 12 - 13, I think.

[LUKE2447]

[QUOTE=Aquila;1072236]Recipe for damnation.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It is reckoning that which isn't presently perceivable as being so. By faith I accept, and reckon it so, that Christ's very own righteousness is imputed to me. It isn't predicated upon my works... it's predicated upon His... the cross.


twisting points and just like Blume missing the points. Receiving christ's righteousness can only be received by BEING RIGHTEOUS! You cannot receive without FAITH/REPONSE of the heart to receive which is casting off this world and following from the point of hearing.

One isn't in Christ unless Christ is in them. When Christ abides in us through the Holy Spirit, in that day we accept by faith that Father is in Him, He in us, and we in Him. Oneness with Christ through the Holy Spirit. Obedience is the byproduct of our partaking of His divine nature. Obedience doesn't earn the divine nature or salvation... it is the result of the indwelling divine nature.

Obedience is a based on hearing and believing. I don't have to have the HS to obey. I need the HS to be perfected toward him and to come into a new medium of relatioship with God.

So man never obeyed before the imputation of the divine nature? Which is simply receiving his Spirit to work in you. We obey because we hear and from hearing obey from the heart.

God doesn't want you to give yourself wholly to Him. In fact, that's part of the problem for most. They want to give something detestable to God, the self. God isn't impressed with your self or your actions. In fact, God desires that your self be ERADICATED.

As usual abuse of intent of words. Typical Aquila. Won't even deal with the rest.

nothing but herectical imputation doctrine and distortion of what is said.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The fact is God did not curse man. And sin nature is not a curse from God that is a strawman.

How did he get a "sin nature" Mike? I don't believe in it. If Adam did not have it how did "man" get it. lol

For man's sake means in the place of man, as though ground stood for man, and because it would affect man. Cursing something to affect man is far different than cursing man.

did you even read CONTEXT Mike.

Man was not "cursed" with death. Death was the outcome of disobedience, like man walking into death, not being cursed with it. You have all these nuances to the statements made int he bible which nuances the bible never relates. Same with your Romans 5 slant. Romans 5 simply said Adam's act made us sinners. It did not say it made us susceptible to BECOME sinners


Wrong. It was not a cursing from God like you are trying to make it out to be.



You can keep trying to put your two cents' worth into the reason why we are righteous, but I reject it. Yes we must obey. But our act does not award us righteousness.

So without obedience we we still righteous? Without obedience we are covered with his blood?

His act awarded us righteousness.

HIS ACT provided the ability to do righteousness to us IF we walk in faithfulness. Again you are seperating the act of grace(mongergistic source) from the resulting faith to receive(synergistic response). Faith is contextual! Grace in itself DOES NOT NOR CAN SAVE ALONE! GRACE BY ITSELF SAVES NOBODY! It is by grace through our response to his Word that we are saved. His D,B,R gave him authority. We DO NOT receive forgiveness unless we are walking in the light as he did. 1 John 1:7

Your view is like saying our approach to the table to eat food is more cause for the food in our bellies than the one who made the food and prepared the table. It is self seeking to glory in self and is ultimately self-righteousness.

LOL... you are getting as bad as aquila. don't even have time to begin how poor your analogy is.

No, you are preaching self-righteousness and emphasizing our obedience.

self? Now it is "his" righteousness that I walk by. BY walking in him I receive him. If not I am not IN him to be covered by HIM.

Our obedience only allows Him to give us righteousness, ME: YES THINK ABOUT IT(1 JOHN 1:7) but you are making it into a work directly responsible for making us righteous,(ME: MONERGISTIC SOURCE AND SYNERGISTIC RESPONSE) and THAT is what the bible is totally against. Pelagianism is heresy! Sorry. Is is pharisaism.

HELLO! do you even follow what you say? At that even me. You JUST GAVE a PELAGIANISTIC PRINCIPLE and THEN CONDEMN IT. LOL

Our obedience to get in Christ is, again, no greater than walking up to the table to eat the food provided for us. The work to provide the food for us is what the preparer accomplished and he deserves the glory. You are trying to make the approach the element worthy of glory instead.

Sorry, I do not buy that pharisaical distortion.

playing both sides mike and missing both sides too. Do you even understand mongergistic source with a synegergistic response or reality? Seriously! REad what you JUST SAID and think about it. you totaly confuse things and jump all over the place.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Receiving christ's righteousness can only be received by BEING RIGHTEOUS!

Yep, you believe we receive Christ's righteousness by being righteous (Works). A performance based salvation that mocks the cross and the redemptive plan of God. Legalism at it's finest. Religion. Dead where it stands.

I believe that we receive Christ's righteousness by faith. And it is that imputed righteousness, our partaking of that divine nature, that brings obedience. Because we are changed, new creatures. It is now in our very spiritual nature to obey. A fish can't help but swim. A son of God can't help but be righteous. It's a change of nature.