A question about babies salvation

[bling]

Exactly, Jesse was a man and as the father of David passed on original sin to him. We all have a father, all except Jesus and only Jesus is sinless. He had a mother because he was to be human, so his humanity came from her, but by not having a human father he did not have original sin.
I am sure others will disagree with me but he is the only human is history to not sin and also the only human in history to not have an earthly father. Coincidence I think not.



Yes, the New Testament says Eve was deceived but Adam wasn't. She ate the fruit and was fine which is why she passed it over to him, he then ate and both their eyes were open. Again I don't think this was a coincidence but the fact that Adam was in charge and Eve was there as his help mate. They each had their own roles to play and God gave the direction and commands to Adam.

“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3).
The husband was and still is, in charge. God doesn't change.



No one is saying that a person doesn't get DNA from both, but scripture makes it quite obvious that there is a difference between men and women, their roles and responsibilities. That is was Adam's sin that brought in death, that Adam was the head. I believe this is also why God gave the command to circumcise male babies on the eighth day, this signifies a sacrifice, but why only male babies? God never tells woman to do this. There is a difference in what God expects from men and woman if people like it or not.


Well it was his fault.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Again whether we like it or not, Adam did sin knowingly, he did cause the fall and he did bring in death. Eve was under his care and a man is still the head of the wife. It was also part of the curse.
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

None of this means that each person doesn't have responsibility for the sins they commit. Original sin is simply the selfish nature, the propensity for sin, which we must all fight against.
Romans 7
For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.
Even Paul had to fight against his sinful nature.

So you believe all wives sins by having sex with their husband and conceiving?

 

[atpollard]

“Where do babies that die in infancy go?,are they immediately taken to heaven,or are some sent to hell?”

Scripture is silent, so any answer is human speculation.
The real question behind the question is: “Is God good?”

If God is good, then you can trust that whatever happens, God’s choice was the right choice (it was also good). If you cannot trust God’s decision (whatever it is), then it is ultimately the “goodness” of God that you are unsure of.

So …
IS GOD GOOD? Can we REALLY trust Him? Can we trust God with the fate of a dead baby?

 

[coffee4u]

So you believe all wives sins by having sex with their husband and conceiving?

I just love people who put words in my mouth. Did I say that? No.
You can have sex without conceiving.
Sex outside of marriage is sin, full stop.

 

[coffee4u]

We are looking at a Hebrew verse. Who was the father according to scripture of David's two sisters?

Put it down again if you would like me to look I may have not noticed.

 

[bling]

I just love people who put words in my mouth. Did I say that? No.
You can have sex without conceiving.
Sex outside of marriage is sin, full stop.

Are you not saying David's mother sinned by just getting pregnant?
Why would that not apply to every woman who gets pregnant?
If a wife does not want to sin, she would have to also avoid pregnancy with your interpretation.

 

[bling]

Put it down again if you would like me to look I may have not noticed.

1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”

Why might these two only be David’s sisters and not Jesse’s daughters: 2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man’s son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab’s mother.”

Nahash is king of the Ammonites.

The Bible gives very few names of sisters (women in general) and fewer, if any, daughter's names of pagan kings, we do not even have the David's mother's name. Jesse was a devout Jew, so would he copy the names of a pagan gentile king in naming his daughters and that still leaves Amasa?

The only way to resolve this is by assuming Jesse's second wife was previously married to Nahash and she bore David after marrying Jesse.

 

[coffee4u]

Are you not saying David's mother sinned by just getting pregnant?
Why would that not apply to every woman who gets pregnant?
If a wife does not want to sin, she would have to also avoid pregnancy with your interpretation.

You obviously have the wrong end of the stick.
We are conceived in sin. The conceiving part is the male cell entering the female cell. Original sin passes from the father to the child. The new life has within it the fallen nature, the propensity to sin. It hasn't committed any sins of his or her own yet, but they will as soon as they are cognitively and physically able to.
No one is saying sex itself is sinful unless it is outside of marriage, no one is saying being pregnant is sinful.

 

[coffee4u]

1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”

Why might these two only be David’s sisters and not Jesse’s daughters: 2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man’s son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab’s mother.”

Nahash is king of the Ammonites.

The Bible gives very few names of sisters (women in general) and fewer, if any, daughter's names of pagan kings, we do not even have the David's mother's name. Jesse was a devout Jew, so would he copy the names of a pagan gentile king in naming his daughters and that still leaves Amasa?

The only way to resolve this is by assuming Jesse's second wife was previously married to Nahash and she bore David after marrying Jesse.

Oh you are asking me to look at family tree and relationships. *makes my head spin*
There convoluted family ties has nothing to do with what I was saying about the father passing on original sin. I do know that Jewish family trees do not work like ours. Sometimes a brother would marry a widow and the children would count as the dead brothers, or an uncle, or sometimes the 'father' would be the grandfather. It wasn't always to do with blood but marriage and headship.
Davids mother may have had children to different men.
I have also heard it should not be Amasa's father was an Israelite... The true reading is הַיּשְׁמְעֵאלִי, is an Ishmaelite, according to 1 Chron. 2:17, where the name is written Jether, a contracted form of Jithra.
This is not the kind of thing I get stuck into. I will leave that for you to work out lol.

 

[bling]

You obviously have the wrong end of the stick.
We are conceived in sin. The conceiving part is the male cell entering the female cell. Original sin passes from the father to the child. The new life has within it the fallen nature, the propensity to sin. It hasn't committed any sins of his or her own yet, but they will as soon as they are cognitively and physically able to.
No one is saying sex itself is sinful unless it is outside of marriage, no one is saying being pregnant is sinful.

This is in the context of Psalms 51 we have been discussing about David's mother sinning.

 

[bling]

Oh you are asking me to look at family tree and relationships. *makes my head spin*
There convoluted family ties has nothing to do with what I was saying about the father passing on original sin. I do know that Jewish family trees do not work like ours. Sometimes a brother would marry a widow and the children would count as the dead brothers, or an uncle, or sometimes the 'father' would be the grandfather. It wasn't always to do with blood but marriage and headship.
Davids mother may have had children to different men.
I have also heard it should not be Amasa's father was an Israelite... The true reading is הַיּשְׁמְעֵאלִי, is an Ishmaelite, according to 1 Chron. 2:17, where the name is written Jether, a contracted form of Jithra.
This is not the kind of thing I get stuck into. I will leave that for you to work out lol.

You are the one taking Psalms 51:5 as you support for such a conclusion and I am showing how Psalms 51:5 needs to be translated.

 

[TedT]

Original sin passes from the father to the child.

So you defend the idea that GOD creates evil people under judgement of suffering and death without any free will decision to sin on their part? Wow...

Light cannot create darkness.
A good tree cannot put forth rotten fruit.
A stream of life giving water cannot put forth salt or brackish water.
GOODNESS cannot bring forth evil.
Inherited sin or sin by the will of GOD is anathema.

1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. Surely this means that HE cannot do or create evil in any way by any method any more than a match can be struck and darkness come out and fill a room! If you think this verse means something else I'd love to hear what that is but please, no more theology proving that creating us as men in Adam is NOT creating us to be sinners and evil.

Do we believe Mark 3:23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." ? Is not the holy side of this syllogism, IF GOD drives out Satan's evil, how can HE create the evil HE hates? IF GOD hates wickedness: and has no wickedness in HIM, Psalm 92:15 proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him. and Psalm 5:4 For You are not a God who delights in wickedness; no evil can dwell with You., how can we say that HE created wicked people by having them born as men in Adam without being a house divided? Both things cannot be true at the same time because they are opposites. Doublethink is the name given to the thought process that believes opposites are both true, A actually is NOT A, at the same time in the same form, sigh. IF HE cannot dwell with the wicked, how can HE have created them / us, especially HIS Bride, as evil in Adam?

Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Christ is good so cannot create evil people by making them human in Adam's sin, especially those HE chose before the foundation of the world to be HIS Bride!!! What foolishness is this??

James 3:11 Can both freshwater and bitter water flow from the same spring? 12 My brothers, can a fig tree grow olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water; Though this verse is about words from the heart, how much more is it about the heartfelt creation of people who are more important than words?

2 b cntd:

 

[TedT]

IF original sin means that we inherit a sinful nature from Adam and NOT that we are guilty of our own free will decision to sin, then I cannot accept it until some questions are answered to my satisfaction...

1. Sinner only by a free will choice to sin
IF we are created as sinful without any choice to be sinful then it stands to reason that this lack of mens rea means I am not guilty of any sin / crime and should not be held accountable OR IF I am guilty, that I must have intended to sin to get a sinful nature. If I have a sinful nature from Adam then it is either Adam who is guilty of all my sins or it is GOD because HE did not have to create me a member of Adam's family!

2. Against scripture
I need to know how this doctrine doesn't contradict the doctrine so clearly laid out in Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son (US) shall not bear the iniquity of the father (ADAM), neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked (THOSE WHO CHOSE BY THEIR FREE WILL TO BE WICKED) shall be upon him.

3. Death proves sin
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, implies death proves sin. So yes people die at all ages but they must die for their own sin, not anyone else's: Jeremiah 31:30 "But everyone will die for his own iniquity;... says it clearly.

4. Loving righteousness cannot create evil
1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. Can darkness come from light? Can stagnant foul water come from a spring of pure life giving water? Of course not and neither can dark (evil ) come from Light (loving righteousness). This foolishness is like striking a match and expecting dark to fill the room!

GOD cannot create evil people by any means including forcing them to be born without their aquiessence into Adam's sin. Orthodoxy only needs this blasphemous doctrine because they have completely accepted the hypothesis that we are created in sin on earth so there is no time for us to sin by our free will.

1 John 2:16 For everything in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life-- comes not from the Father but from the world. To create us with a sin nature means that all these things comes from HIM as HE created us. This verse denies that very openly.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts --murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. Is 'heart' another name for our created 'human nature' or 'sinful nature'? Then you know what I think...

Gal 5:16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. The flesh and the Spirit are contrary to each other, they are in conflict! One cannot produce the other as a fulfillment of any purpose whatsoever. How is it reasonable to think GOD creates that which HE is in conflict with...? GOD's Kingdom is not divided by the creation of evil as it would be IF HE created it: Luke 11:17 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: "Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. ...in the context that Satan will not cast out demons which must extrapolate to therefore Christ would never be involved with creating evil.

IF it is blasphemous to say Jesus cast out demons by the finger of Satan, how much more to say that HE created all human evil by creating us in Adam's evil and liable to judgement?? And this is also in the context of: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

Gal 5:19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. If these things are outside of the Kingdom of God then GOD as the HIGH KING cannot nor would not (if HE could) ever create them or the impulse to do them or a nature that would inevitably lead to them. And does not the creation of evil create dissensions, factions within HIS Kingdom??? Duh, creation in Adam suddenly creates eternal evil enemies but no dissensions or factions??? <headshake, facepalm>

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. THESE are the things GOD creates - wherein is there any place for sin and evil to be created?

5. HIS Bride as filthy rags
Since the wedding of the Lamb to His Bride finishes the Bible story after all evil is vanished from this reality, it would seem to be the culmination of HIS purpose for us, the whole reason why we were created, the purpose in fact of our creation.

I need to know how this purpose is enhanced by our being created in Adam's sin where we are sick and evil and the best we can do is filthy rags (we all know the allusion here). Orthodoxy claims HE proved HE could create innocents with a free will in Adam and Eve so there is no reason to put us into Adam's blood line at all unless HE wanted us to be evil in HIS sight and this was HIS method. I have asked this question of orthodox believers for years and have found no reason let alone a good reason for why HE would do this.

It is as if HE could only have a perfect Bride if HE first created her as grossly sick and evil, perhaps the grosser the better. This doctrine severely limits HIS creative ability as if HE ran out of the power to create innocents and could only create sinners.

 

[atpollard]

So you defend the idea that GOD creates evil people under judgement of suffering and death without any free will decision to sin on their part? Wow...

Do you deny that even babies need a savior?

 

[atpollard]

IF original sin means that we inherit a sinful nature from Adam and NOT that we are guilty of our own free will decision to sin, then I cannot accept it until some questions are answered to my satisfaction...

It is not "either"/"or" ... it is "both".

The child of an alcoholic may have been born with a genetic propensity towards alcoholism. They have an innate, genetic, drive to over-consume and a biological disposition towards addiction. However these innate traits only make it EASIER for them to become the "town drunk". Ultimately, they CHOSE to drink and are responsible for their choices and actions and the consequences of those actions. Their genetics made alcoholism EASIER, but it did not make drunkenness inevitable. They are an alcoholic by birth, but they are drunk by choice.

So too, with men and sin. We are born with a natural "bent" (a fascination and proclivity) TOWARDS "the world" and AWAY from "God". That does not negate the fact that we, like the child of alcoholics, CHOOSE to follow that desire rather than resist it. It only made it easier for us to choose sin over God.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 [NASB20]
For since by a man death came, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Why does it say "death" came by Adam? Adam was not the first to eat the fruit. Adam was not the first to die. Adam was not the first to kill. So why does scripture say "in Adam all die"?

Do we (all human beings) inherit the "sin gene" (natural propensity towards sin) from Adam?

Scripture says: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." [Romans 6:23 NASB20] ... so it is not unreasonable to link "sin" and "death" as a joint family legacy from our patriarch Adam.

 

[atpollard]

So you defend the idea that GOD creates evil people under judgement of suffering and death without any free will decision to sin on their part? Wow...

Technically, GOD created only THREE people ...

• Adam from dust
• Eve from Adam
• Jesus from ... well that one people are still arguing over the details (but it involves a virgin named Mary and the Holy Spirit)

Your Mother and Father created YOU ... and neither of them was God (or even just sinless).

 

[atpollard]

You are the one taking Psalms 51:5 as you support for such a conclusion and I am showing how Psalms 51:5 needs to be translated.

"needs" is too strong a word, since so many translators disagreed that it was his mother's sin.
"A possibility" but not "the only possibility" (according to the scholars).

 

[coffee4u]

This is in the context of Psalms 51 we have been discussing about David's mother sinning.

Yes, so am I.

5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

If others are trying to make out that its the sex act itself which is sinful that isn't true. God created sex to be within marriage and marriage only. There are many verses to that effect.
1 Corinthians 7:3
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:2
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
Proverbs 5:19
A lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.

So if sex inside of marriage is not sinful then that verse is talking about something else.
Is talking about conception which is the passing on of the sinful nature which is why it spread to all people since all people are conceived. Nothing special about David's mother, all of us are conceived in sin.

However if we are saying that David's parents are not married that casts yet another light on things. This is very interesting:
Does the Bible mention David’s mother? | GotQuestions.org
In Jewish tradition, David’s mother was Nitzevet, the daughter of Adael and the wife of Jesse. The Talmud relates a complicated story concerning Nitzevet: her husband, Jesse, began to doubt the purity of his ancestry, since he was the grandson of Ruth the Moabitess (Ruth 4:17). Due to his doubts, Jesse stopped having marital relations with Nitzevet after she had borne her seventh son. Instead, Jesse planned to marry his Canaanite servant and have children with her. The maidservant, however, had pity on Nitzevet and offered Nitzevet a plan: on the wedding night, Nitzevet and the maidservant could secretly switch places, and Nitzevet could sleep with Jesse one more time. The switch worked, much as Leah and Rachel’s switch had worked on Jacob, and Nitzevet became pregnant with David, her eighth son. Nitzevet never revealed to Jesse what she had done, even when her pregnancy was apparent; therefore, Nitzevet came to be despised as an immoral woman, and her son, David, grew up an outcast in his own family. Again, this is an extrabiblical legend, and there is no way to confirm the accuracy of the tale of Nitzevet.
But its legend and speculation not known facts. If his mother did conceive him outside of being married then that verse could be read both ways.

 

[TedT]

Do you deny that even babies need a savior?

Of course not - I just contended they were sinners because they die!!!

 

[TedT]

So too, with men and sin. We are born with a natural "bent" (a fascination and proclivity) TOWARDS "the world" and AWAY from "God".

This would not make us liable to death and infants and fetus' all die. As wages for sin, death is not a consequence of living...nor does a bent cause death.

 

[TedT]

Technically, GOD created only THREE people ...

• Adam from dust
• Eve from Adam
• Jesus from ... well that one people are still arguing over the details (but it involves a virgin named Mary and the Holy Spirit)

Your Mother and Father created YOU ... and neither of them was God (or even just sinless).

Call our conception our creation if it floats your boat, the JWs push that line too, but it is still HIS system which HE created and by that system sinners are brought into existence who did not exist a moment before.

There is something seriously wrong with this doctrine or an inherited original sin but we will never have any chance to rethink it as long as we accept it and just keep repeating the same old blasphemous platitudes.