Jeremiah 18: Romans 9 De-Calvinized

[Hammster]

We may be born to a broken and sinful world, but that does not make every being sinful.

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
— Romans 3:9

 

[Job 33:6]

Everyone has a sinful nature - a nature that is corrupt and bent toward rebellion. Infants do not have the discipline or ability to master abstract concepts needed to call upon God and resist it. Babies learn to scream in rage within a few hours. They need a Savior - they have one and He knows how to save them even though they do not know what they are doing.

In this case, these babies would not deserve punishment, given that they do not know what they are doing. But even prior to birth. At some point we have to acknowledge that those who are not sinning or have not sinned, do not deserve punishment.

 

[Hammster]

And the unborn have a Savior

Though they have not committed sin - James 4:17 John 9:41, they have a sinful nature and would still need a Savior - which they have.

I would agree that those He died for have a Savior.

 

[Hammster]

In this case, these babies would not deserve punishment, given that they do not know what they are doing. But even prior to birth. At some point we have to acknowledge that those who are not sinning or have not sinned, do not deserve punishment.

They deserve punishment because of their sin nature. If God is merciful, that’s His choice.

 

[Job 33:6]

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
— Romans 3:9

And regarding this, Greeks and Jews are adults. The people who could read Paul's letter are adults. Or at least people who are of an old enough age to be literate.

Paul is talking about society. And he's talking about people who sin. He's not talking about unborn infants that haven't sinned. Like I mentioned above, how could an unborn baby leave ruin in their wake or have deceit on their tongues? He's clearly not talking about the unborn.

 

[BobRyan]

I would agree that those He died for have a Savior.

1 John 4:14 "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD"
John 3:16 "God so loved the World that He gave.."

 

[BobRyan]

In this case, these babies would not deserve punishment, given that they do not know what they are doing. But even prior to birth. At some point we have to acknowledge that those who are not sinning or have not sinned, do not deserve punishment.

True. But they do need a Savior to remove their sinful nature. They cannot go on their own as if they are by nature sinless rather than having been created/born with a sinful nature.

 

[Job 33:6]

They deserve punishment because of their sin nature. If God is merciful, that’s His choice.

So we can't justify the idea that babies go to hell because it's quite clear that babies, particularly those that are unborn, have never sinned, And thus would not deserve any form of punishment. So instead to retreat to this mysterious aspect of a "sin nature". One that clearly an unborn baby has no control over.

Which essentially amounts to God punishing babies in hellfire merely for being conceived.

I think this is just theology gone wrong. This is the polar opposite of Jesus being sent to save. But it goes one step further and suggesting that Jesus wouldn't even save them all, but rather perhaps just an elect few.

Rather than bringing balance and defeating sin and rectifying the brokenness of creation, it sounds more like acceptance of broken creation, and acceptance of broken hellbound eternity for the innocent.

Surely this cannot be the character of God.

 

[Hammster]

And regarding this, Greeks and Jews are adults. The people who could read Paul's letter are adults. Or at least people who are of an old enough age to be literate.

Paul is talking about society. And he's talking about people who sin. He's not talking about unborn infants that haven't sinned. Like I mentioned above, how could an unborn baby leave ruin in their wake or have deceit on their tongues? He's clearly not talking about the unborn.

Okay. So some people actually are without the nature to sin, I guess.

 

[Hammster]

1 John 4:14 "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD"
John 3:16 "God so loved the World that He gave.."

And which of the 8+ definitions of world are you using?

 

[Hammster]

So we can't justify the idea that babies go to hell because it's quite clear that babies, particularly those that are unborn, have never sinned, And thus would not deserve any form of punishment. So instead to retreat to this mysterious aspect of a "sin nature". One that clearly an unborn baby has no control over.

Which essentially amounts to God punishing babies in hellfire merely for being conceived.

I think this is just theology gone wrong. This is the polar opposite of Jesus being sent to save. But it goes one step further and suggesting that Jesus wouldn't even save them all, but rather perhaps just an elect few.

Rather than bringing balance and defeating sin and rectifying the brokenness of creation, it sounds more like acceptance of broken creation, and acceptance of broken hellbound eternity for the innocent.

Surely this cannot be the character of God.

For the record, I’ve not said that babies will suffer in hell.

 

[Job 33:6]

Okay. So some people actually are without the nature to sin, I guess.

I think it's easiest to say that some cannot sin, such as an unborn baby, and therefore are not deserving of punishment.

It is not until a being one becomes capable of sinning and then carries our sin, that they then become guilty.

 

[Job 33:6]

For the record, I’ve not said that babies will suffer in hell.

What you're saying is that all unborn babies deserve hell (according to Paul) And I'm saying, that's not the character of God and not what Paul is saying.

 

[Hammster]

I think it's easiest to say that some cannot sin, such as an unborn baby, and therefore are not deserving of punishment.

It is not until a being one becomes capable of sinning and then carries our sin, that they then become guilty.

Why does someone become capable of sin?

 

[Job 33:6]

Why does someone become capable of sin?

They grow up and through their maturity, develop an ability to make a sinful choice. Just like how I can't drive a car when I'm first born. I must grow to some extent to become capable.

 

[Hammster]

They grow up and through their maturity, develop an ability to make a sinful choice. Just like how I can't drive a car when I'm first born. I must grow to some extent.

But why? Why don’t some keep their ability to not sin?

 

[Job 33:6]

But why? Why don’t some keep their ability to not sin?

It's not an ability to not sin, rather it's an inability to sin.

I suppose the answer would be that this is how God created us. Even Adam eventually had the ability to sin once God made him in full, yet while Adam was being shaped, Adam did not have the ability to sin.

He could only sin once he had freedom to choose to.

 

[Hammster]

It's not an ability to not sin, rather it's an inability to sin.

I suppose the answer would be that this is how God created us. Even Adam eventually had the ability to sin once God made him in full, yet while Adam was being shaped, Adam did not have the ability to sin.

He could only sin once he had freedom to choose to.

Okay, so why do we all lose our inability to sin?

 

[tdidymas]

What sins did a miscarriaged baby conduct?

Romans 3:10, how can an unborn infants tongue speak of deceit? This verse doesn't apply to your argument unless you can answer these questions.

None that I can think of.

Romans 9:16 is saying that salvation occurs apart from the law (mosaic rulings on diets, the Sabbath, circumcision etc.), but this doesn't mean that God dictates who chooses to accept Christ or chooses to reject Christ.

I thought that the term "predestinated" meant that God decrees salvation for certain individuals. Predestine means to destine someone for a certain end before they exist, doesn't it? It doesn't mean foresee, as if God isn't involved in it. According to John 6, God draws some individuals to Christ, and doesn't draw others (by implication). That means when someone is drawn to Christ, God is actively drawing them from the spiritual realm, literally, and through the gospel message. It's the means of fulfilling the predestination. Others aren't drawn (as observed in reality), therefore, God isn't drawing them. If you want to use the term "dictate" which implies a derogatory attitude toward what scripture is saying about that, it's your prerogative.

 

[tdidymas]

So what is God holding his hands out in anticipation for, all day long, if God already determined that they would reject Him? What is God waiting for?

God isn't holding his hands out waiting for himself to make a choice.

God holding his hands out all day long is not an active demonstration of God saving Israel. It's God waiting, all day long, for Israel to choose.

And this has to do with predestination, it's not about whether or not God actively works in people's hearts

It speaks of God's patience. It speaks of the words written down by the prophets to be the means by which the people ought to know enough to repent and turn to God. It speaks of the sinful nature which is a spiritual problem, not an intellectual problem. It speaks of something in the spiritual realm that people need which they don't have, and which only comes from God.

Therefore, when people think they can judge what is right for themselves, and think they can understand God by intellectual reasoning, they end up being self-centered which is idolatry. It's the attitude that "I" know what's best, which is alluded to in Rom. 3:4. And how is that attitude to be changed to one of humility toward God? This is what takes an act of God in the spiritual realm. That act of God is spiritual rebirth, according to John 3, 1 Cor. 2, Eph. 2, and other places. That act results in a change of attitude toward God for that individual.

So that verse in context is saying that God is letting Jews stew in their own misunderstanding (but not all of them).