How Tenuous is Your Salvation

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A few thoughts, not that I have all the answers...

1. Who says infants are 'saved' to begin with? You seem to be assuming they are 'saved' first, then at some point 'lose their salvation' requiring them to be re-saved. But who says so? Does the Bible say so?

Yes, I'm assuming that infants and children are saved. No, the bible doesn't say so. They either are or they aren't. Examining both views results in very important conclusions though.

If we assume they aren't, then every person is lost until some point in their life whereby they 'get saved'. If this is the case, those that have lost infants, children, the aborted are in hell or hell bound. For some I guess this would be acceptable, for me it's not. Maybe I'm just making a decision based on emotion rather than truth though.

If we assume they are then there's a process whereby they're saved and they enjoy that salvation until some point in their life when they lose that salvation. A discarding of them by God.

Which view is correct? I think it's very important to find out.

Once we come to a conclusion on the two views, then we can better address your points.

[Truthseeker]

My first baby believed babies went to hell.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Yes, I'm assuming that infants and children are saved. No, the bible doesn't say so. They either are or they aren't. Examining both views results in very important conclusions though.

If we assume they aren't, then every person is lost until some point in their life whereby they 'get saved'. If this is the case, those that have lost infants, children, the aborted are in hell or hell bound. For some I guess this would be acceptable, for me it's not. Maybe I'm just making a decision based on emotion rather than truth though.

If we assume they are then there's a process whereby they're saved and they enjoy that salvation until some point in their life when they lose that salvation. A discarding of them by God.

Which view is correct? I think it's very important to find out.

Why doesn't the bible just state the case, clearly?

Or does it?

On the one hand, one may say that babies are born in a state of innocence, neither holy nor unholy, neither righteous nor unrighteous. As they grow, they reach a point in which they become accountable moral agents. When that point is I do not presume to know, but it is probable that it is different for each person, as it would depend on their knowledge, mental development, understanding, etc. At this point, they become moral agents and are accountable for their actions. If their actions are sinful, then their moral character is no longer 'innocent' but 'sinful'. They have defiled themselves with their sin.

And thus are condemned, and without hope except in Christ. Meaning, they now need to be forgiven, saved, redeemed, etc.

On the other hand, one may argue that even if babies are born innocent, neither holy nor unholy, neither righteous nor unrighteous, nevertheless only the righteous and holy may inherit eternal life. Thus, if they die before the age of accountability, and thus before any meaningful exercise of faith in Christ is possible, unless God sanctifies them and declares them righteous, they will not enter into life.

One may suggest God does in fact do just that. God sanctifies all infants who die before being able to discern good and evil, able to exercise repentance and faith.

Or one may say that all infants are born not in a state of innocence, lacking moral character, but are regarded by God as holy until such time as they defile themselves by their sin. Thus, if they die prior to such time, they will inherit eternal life. such are in the state of Adam prior to his fall.

(Of course, if one believes in 'original inherited sin' one is led to the conclusion that all babies who die before exercising faith in Christ are most certainly not only going to suffer eternal death, but deservedly so, as they are 'born sinners.')


But then we get into the Covenant aspect. As I said previously, I do not think we can lump all people together. Consider this:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

There appears to be a certain amount of 'sanctification' applied to the family of a believer, both to their unbelieving spouse, and their children. It would be absurd to suggest the spouse is therefore 'saved', because they are accountable for their own sins, but the children? If they are not accountable yet, then being 'holy' means they will receive eternal life if they die before they defile themselves with their own sins.

A difficult topic for sure, but I believe the Covenantal approach is the direction the truth lies.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

My first baby believed babies went to hell.

Oops, meant my first pastor.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I don't do links. If you could put it in your own words?

The article is about the sefer chaim or Book of Life.

It suggests that all souls are originally written in the Book of Life, but only subsequent to the introduction of sin through the knowledge of the law, does one find their name being "blotted out" as it were. At which point of course, salvation is necessitated, so that one's name can be written again.

There is much more to it than that, but that's what I'd call the nutshell version.

[votivesoul]

It seems Romans 7:7-11 is appropriate at this point of the conversation.

7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

If we are talking children, babies, the unborn, and etc. we might accurately state that such have no knowledge of sin except through the law.

Adding Romans 3:20b to the mix:

...for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

we get a picture of people being morally innocent, i.e. just/righteous before God when they are born, up until the person in question becomes accountable to the law.

Once the law of God is perceived and understood, as Paul wrote, the other law (the law of sin) will, through the weakness of human flesh, take advantage of the situation and give rise to the first sinful act.

As Paul wrote: without the law he had once been alive (i.e. as a baby/child). But once the law was introduced, (the law of) sin revived or came alive and killed him, spiritually speaking, by leading him to commit the first of his many subsequent sins.

But notice what he said in verse 8. Without the law, sin was dead, that is dormant. The law of sin and the death that the wages of sin brings, had no power over him when he was without the law.

This only happens when people are babies/children.

So, no child needs to be "saved", as in rescued from sin and the destructive power it wields, since no child is inherently lost (i.e. unrighteous).

But there does come that age when everything changes. For me, it was about six or seven when I consciously lied to my mom, knew I was lying, knew it was wrong, knew there would be a terrible consequence for lying, and after considering all that, still told the lie.

Was I damned to hell at that moment? I cannot say.

But I will offer this:

2 Chronicles 36:9,

9. Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.

Apparently an 8 year is capable of committing evil. But then again, an 8 year is capable of doing right, too:

2 Chronicles 34:1-2,

1. Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem one and thirty years.
2. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the ways of David his father, and declined neither to the right hand, nor to the left.

So I would say that at the minimum (though not for every human ever) 8 years old seems to be the base age at which one "takes their soul into their own hands" as it were, and risks having their name being blotted out of the Book of Life.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Oops, meant my first pastor.

I've been trying to ponder what you meant ever since you first posted that, lol.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

So, no child needs to be "saved", as in rescued from sin and the destructive power it wields, since no child is inherently lost (i.e. unrighteous).

Interesting take on the subject. But what about the issue of holiness? I quoted a verse earlier where Paul says 'otherwise your children were unclean, but now they are holy'.

How does that play into Romans 7?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Why doesn't the bible just state the case, clearly?

Or does it?

On the one hand, one may say that babies are born in a state of innocence, neither holy nor unholy, neither righteous nor unrighteous. As they grow, they reach a point in which they become accountable moral agents. When that point is I do not presume to know, but it is probable that it is different for each person, as it would depend on their knowledge, mental development, understanding, etc. At this point, they become moral agents and are accountable for their actions. If their actions are sinful, then their moral character is no longer 'innocent' but 'sinful'. They have defiled themselves with their sin.

And thus are condemned, and without hope except in Christ. Meaning, they now need to be forgiven, saved, redeemed, etc.

On the other hand, one may argue that even if babies are born innocent, neither holy nor unholy, neither righteous nor unrighteous, nevertheless only the righteous and holy may inherit eternal life. Thus, if they die before the age of accountability, and thus before any meaningful exercise of faith in Christ is possible, unless God sanctifies them and declares them righteous, they will not enter into life.

One may suggest God does in fact do just that. God sanctifies all infants who die before being able to discern good and evil, able to exercise repentance and faith.

Or one may say that all infants are born not in a state of innocence, lacking moral character, but are regarded by God as holy until such time as they defile themselves by their sin. Thus, if they die prior to such time, they will inherit eternal life. such are in the state of Adam prior to his fall.

(Of course, if one believes in 'original inherited sin' one is led to the conclusion that all babies who die before exercising faith in Christ are most certainly not only going to suffer eternal death, but deservedly so, as they are 'born sinners.')


But then we get into the Covenant aspect. As I said previously, I do not think we can lump all people together. Consider this:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

There appears to be a certain amount of 'sanctification' applied to the family of a believer, both to their unbelieving spouse, and their children. It would be absurd to suggest the spouse is therefore 'saved', because they are accountable for their own sins, but the children? If they are not accountable yet, then being 'holy' means they will receive eternal life if they die before they defile themselves with their own sins.

A difficult topic for sure, but I believe the Covenantal approach is the direction the truth lies.

Interesting views, thanks for posting them. It's certainly a difficult topic for it seems that the bible isn't totally clear on the matter. I wouldn't disagree that it's a Conventional relationship in the process, but wouldn't that have an element of Calvinism in that particular view? I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, but may be something to be considered.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The article is about the sefer chaim or Book of Life.

It suggests that all souls are originally written in the Book of Life, but only subsequent to the introduction of sin through the knowledge of the law, does one find their name being "blotted out" as it were. At which point of course, salvation is necessitated, so that one's name can be written again.

There is much more to it than that, but that's what I'd call the nutshell version.

Scripturally, I don't disagree with your nutshell version. Thanks for condensing it for me.