Are babies unrighteousness?

[JoeP222w]

The goal posts are moving here, are foetus unrighteousness? Do they sin from the moment they exist? No, we all know that.

Having a sin nature is no more sinful than being tempted to sin.

So based on that logic, Christians should be great promoters of abortion, since using that logic is the greatest Heaven filling device there is. (Which is complete nonsense.)



A person is not a sinner because he sins. A person sins because he is a sinner (i.e. he has a sin nature).

Everyone who has ever existed is born with an Adamic nature, that is, he stands condemned before the holy and perfect God. That is why Jesus said you must be born again.

 

[JoeP222w]

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

That was a prophecy of Jesus only, not for all mankind. Jesus is perfect because He is God. He was not conceived with an Adamic nature.

 

[Hank77]

've discovered that the person who has been drawn by the Father doesn't need all those peripheral, made-up questions answered.

Made up questions. Hmm.....I would hardily compare 'where do babies go.." to "God lifting rocks"
Funny I was pretty sure that Paul would have gotten some pretty intense questions from the philosophers when he went to Mars Hill.
Then there are people like C.S. Lewis who was not so easily convinced.
No doubting Thomas' in your life. No Mormons, no JW's, no Christian Scientists in your life.

On the day that a person is being drawn by the Father, all they need is what's contained in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

So one day God draws someone but the next He stops drawing. It's a one day shot is it.

They don't need the Gospel and

Not need the Gospel?

What I have seen is that the person who has been drawn by the Father doesn't need any answers beyond the Gospel to say, "I believe this."

I thought you just said they don't need the Gospel.

And if he hasn't been drawn by the Father, no other answers are going to get him to Christ. He's not really ready yet, and you're wasting Christ's time.

Really. Just wasting Christ's time. Interesting deduction. Charles Spurgeon wouldn't agree with you. Have you ever read what Charles Spurgeon said about babies and where they go? But Spurgeon was just wasting Christ's time when he addressed that question.

 

[TheSeabass]

T

Then why did Jesus had to come by virgin birth? If it was not to bypass that process?

No man is born a sinner. If original sin were true then Christ would have had it Hebrews 2:17; Philippians 2:7.

 

[Small Fish]

I

Made up questions. Hmm.....I would hardily compare 'where do babies go.." to "God lifting rocks"
Funny I was pretty sure that Paul would have gotten some pretty intense questions from the philosophers when he went to Mars Hill.
Then there are people like C.S. Lewis who was not so easily convinced.
No doubting Thomas' in your life. No Mormons, no JW's, no Christian Scientists in your life.

So one day God draws someone but the next He stops drawing. It's a one day shot is it.

Not need the Gospel?

I thought you just said they don't need the Gospel.

Really. Just wasting Christ's time. Interesting deduction. Charles Spurgeon wouldn't agree with you. Have you ever read what Charles Spurgeon said about babies and where they go? But Spurgeon was just wasting Christ's time when he addressed that question.

I Never said babies go to hell. I just said they are not saved on their own merit. If Jesus did not die and resurrect then the whole world would have been lost. Satan has every right to it since Adam and Eve sold out. Even babies are saved by grace. The Lamb was the only one worthy to pay the price, break the seals and to redeem us back to God. You are actually trying to take away honour from God. It's His grace and nothing else.

 

[RDKirk]

Made up questions. Hmm.....I would hardily compare 'where do babies go.." to "God lifting rocks"
Funny I was pretty sure that Paul would have gotten some pretty intense questions from the philosophers when he went to Mars Hill.
Then there are people like C.S. Lewis who was not so easily convinced.
No doubting Thomas' in your life. No Mormons, no JW's, no Christian Scientists in your life.

So one day God draws someone but the next He stops drawing. It's a one day shot is it.

Not need the Gospel?

I thought you just said they don't need the Gospel.

Really. Just wasting Christ's time. Interesting deduction. Charles Spurgeon wouldn't agree with you. Have you ever read what Charles Spurgeon said about babies and where they go? But Spurgeon was just wasting Christ's time when he addressed that question.

Hank77 you know how to read English better than that.

 

[Hank77]

That was a prophecy of Jesus only, not for all mankind. Jesus is perfect because He is God. He was not conceived with an Adamic nature.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

So Jesus, who was 100% human and 100% God, in His youth had to grow in knowledge to know to refuse evil and choose good. But children with only a human nature don't need to?
I agree with you that v15 is prophetic about Jesus.

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

But v16 is not. This verse is talking about Shearjashub, Isaiah's son who God had told Isaiah to bring with him. We can know this by reading which land it was and which two kings did Judah and David's house detest. Israel and Syria, the two kings, Rezin and Remaliah's sons, had joined together against Ahaz and Judah, the house of David. Both kings were killed. see 2Kings 15-16.

H5288
נער
na‛ar
nah'-ar
From H5287; (concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence; by implication a servant; also (by interchange of sex), a girl (of similar latitude in age): - babe, boy, child, damsel [from the margin], lad, servant, young (man).

This Hebrew word is used for a new born in Exodus 2:6; Judges 13:5,7; 1 Samuel 4:21; as well as for a young man about the age of twenty in Genesis 34:19.

 

[Hank77]

I

I Never said babies go to hell. I just said they are not saved on their own merit. If Jesus did not die and resurrect then the whole world would have been lost. Satan has every right to it since Adam and Eve sold out. Even babies are saved by grace. The Lamb was the only one worthy to pay the price, break the seals and to redeem us back to God. You are actually trying to take away honour from God. It's His grace and nothing else.

Please notice that my post was not direct to you. I quoted another poster.

 

[Hank77]

Hank77 you know how to read English better than that.

Oh so it's my mistake, even though I am quoting you directly. OK

 

[Hank77]

T

Then why did Jesus had to come by virgin birth? If it was not to bypass that process?

Please excuse my intrusion, I know you weren't addressing me, however I'd like to throw in my two cents worth.

One reason I think is..
Mary needed to be a virgin so that there would be no question about who Jesus' father is and who Jesus was. God come in the flesh.

 

[Hank77]

So based on that logic, Christians should be great promoters of abortion, since using that logic is the greatest Heaven filling device there is. (Which is complete nonsense.)

Absolutely not. God never gave man the right to kill innocents.

 

[JoeP222w]

But v16 is not. This verse is talking about Shearjashub, Isaiah's son who God had told Isaiah to bring with him.

That does not follow from the straight forward reading of the text.

 

[JoeP222w]

Absolutely not. God never gave man the right to kill innocents.

Then you are being inconsistent if you hold to babies being without sin.

 

[Hank77]

Then you are being inconsistent if you hold to babies being without sin.

How am I being inconsistent? God can take any life and any time He chooses to but I don't see where He gives us that option.

 

[Hank77]

That does not follow from the straight forward reading of the text.

How so?
Isa 7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.
Isa 7:2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
Isa 7:3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in.....

 

[Anand Prabhu Antony]

romans 3:10 quotes "None is righteousness, no not one" but that would have to include the 5 minute old foetus as well as the murder. What does this mean, or is it a bad translation?

No one seeks God, no one understands. It just sounds like hyperbole.

Please read these verses come to a conclusion.
1Corinthians 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Matthew 18:3
“Most certainly I tell you, unless you turn, and become as little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

1Corinthians 14:20
"Brothers, don’t be children in thoughts, yet in malice be babies, but in thoughts be mature".

Romans 5:18
"..as through one trespass, all men were condemned.."

1Corinthians 15:21-22
"...since by a man came death.....
.....For as in Adam all die....

Death conquered every flesh, wether baby or anyone.... God's curse for "disobedience of Adam" came to everyone and it was calculated as sin.

God cursed saying: "you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return." Genesis 3:19.

So, all were under sin as death conquered everyone. But, Thanks to Jesus Christ. He saved every babies from death.

Romans 7:24-25
"Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!.

 

[GreatistheLord]

Do all of these sinless fetuses remain sinless? If not, why not?

Also, you have limited, righteousness", to it's negative. You only speak of it in terms of *not* sinning. Are you aware that obedience to God's law is framed in a positive? Love God and love neighbor.

No, most will sin at some point, but to say all sin is missing the point that some foetuses will die having never sinned.

Righteousness is the absence of accountable sin, otherwise you have a standard that is impossible to achieve, by means of knowledge, cognisance and will, for babies, the handicapped and brainwashed.

 

[GreatistheLord]

So based on that logic, Christians should be great promoters of abortion, since using that logic is the greatest Heaven filling device there is. (Which is complete nonsense.)



A person is not a sinner because he sins. A person sins because he is a sinner (i.e. he has a sin nature).

Everyone who has ever existed is born with an Adamic nature, that is, he stands condemned before the holy and perfect God. That is why Jesus said you must be born again.

No, you condemn all aborted foetuses, all mentally handicapped, and all brainwashed people from other religions on the basis that they can't mentally assent to choosing Christ.

 

[JoeP222w]

No, you condemn all aborted foetuses, all mentally handicapped, and all brainwashed people from other religions on the basis that they can't mentally assent to choosing Christ.

I refute that because I never said that, do not attempt to put words in my mouth [metaphorically]. One is saved based solely on the grace of God and His election of them to salvation. Regardless of their age, or their mental capacity. Nor does emotional response save a person. A baby is not automatically saved because it is vulnerable in the womb. Nor is a baby automatically condemned because they are in the womb. As I said a baby is saved solely because of God's grace and His sovereign election, not because of something special in the individual.

Those who follow a different religion are in willful and purposeful rebellion to God. No one can claim that they did not know God exists, because He has made it very plain to them.

Moreover, salvation is based solely on the transforming work of God's grace, not mental assent.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Thats why I feel once a child is old enough to know right from wrong, they lose their innocence and thus if they die go to hell.

It sounds like an epiphany. Do you remember some point in your life when you can say that from that point on you knew right from wrong? My life is half over and I'm not convinced I know all of it, but I really don't remember any point where I can say I reached some manner of threshold where I knew enough about right and wrong to go to Hell. It was always a gradual progression for me, and not always forward, and it never stopped.

Just give me a best guess. About how old were you when you think you learned enough to go to Hell.

This is not what I'm talking about. If you ever met or studied someone like him you will quickly learn that this is a very extraordinary person. We are talking babies in general. Or do you feel this is a common occurrence?

It's the exception that proves the rule. Someone on this forum said that fetuses can't have faith, because they've never heard the gospel. I don't intend to prove that John the Baptist was the rule, or even commonplace. I only intend to show that the opposite claim is not the rule. It takes repeated examples to prove an absolute rule, but only one example to disprove it.

Honestly, I don't like the word "debate", I prefer to name it "sharing of knowledge". It is not to have a winner, it is to find His truth.

Ironically, someone gave you the "winner" badge for that one. Funny.

A person is not a sinner because he sins. A person sins because he is a sinner (i.e. he has a sin nature).

That makes perfect sense. However, for what is the fetus being condemned?