Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, that IS what the largest Christian church taught until only a few years ago, so it cannot be unthinkable.True. But if original sin were true then infants would need forgiveness of that sin else die as an infant and be lost.
Sure, this is why you see so many debates, contradictions and disagreements over the bible...just on this forum alone. Each person will have to read, study and make up his/her own mind as to what he/she believes then stand before God on judgment day. Those that got it right will hear " Well done, good and faithful servant" and those that THOUGHT they had it right will hear " I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."Couldn't this be so true of us today as well? That we are now reading Scripture for ourselves, or allowing appointed people do it for us and either mistakenly or willfully misinterpreting it?
They were and are wrong about original sin which lead to other errors as immaculate conception and infant baptism.Well, that IS what the largest Christian church taught until only a few years ago, so it cannot be unthinkable.
True. But if original sin were true then infants would need forgiveness of that sin else die as an infant and be lost.
Perhaps on some of that, or all of that, but that's actually beside the point.They were and are wrong about original sin which lead to other errors as immaculate conception and infant baptism.
You made it seem as though unbaptized infants being denied heaven because of unforgiven sin was somehow illogical or unthinkable, yet it has been the prevailing view in the history of Christianity.But if original sin were true then infants would need forgiveness of that sin else die as an infant and be lost.
Right...and it doesn't define youth.
One at birth has the future capability of sinning after he learns good from evil. The 2 year old then must be taught good from evil and be able to mentally process it as he matures intellectually. I can only guess Jesus went through His 'terrible twos' phase but was without sin.I'm not sure I believe that is how original sin works. I think it's that from birth we will be capable of sin (and do sin...you ever seen a 2 year old say "THAT'S MY TOY!" and rip it from the hands of another child who was playing with it? ), whereas the accountability is where that sin is then held against us.
You have literally mined the text for one specific phrase, ripped it violently from its context, and used it to support an insupportable doctrine. You have also exceeded the text of the extra-contextual phrase and asserted that men are not accountable for sin when there is no knowledge of good and evil. Where is the scriptural support for this part of your claim?This shows the 'age of accountability' for as long as a child does not know between good and evil he is not accountable to God's law and sin has no power over him....
First of all, Paul makes no reference to his age when he describes himself as being in ignorance of the law. Age is irrelevant to this discussion.as with Paul in Romans 7:8-9 when he was a child.
" For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once:..."
No law = sin is dead, has no power. So when Paul says he was once alive "without the law" means once in his life sin was dead to him, it had no power over him. This was when he was a child not knowing the difference between good and evil. Yet when Paul matured and learned good from evil (when the commandment came) , then sin sprang up in Paul. Sin sprang up later in his life not when he was conceived or born.
From the moment of conception.
That's NOT what this passage means!"Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."
This context is about the Pharisees who thought they were of God and thought they knew the scriptures yet were really ignorant and prideful and lost.
When Jesus says "If ye were blind, ye should have no sins" meaning if they admitted they were ignorant of the scripture and admitted they were not of God then they could have seen salvation (have no sin).
"but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth" yet the Pharisees, in their self-righteousness, said 'we see' leaving them lost in their sins.
Nowhere do I see then that the Pharisees had the guilt of Adam's sin but Christ holding them accountable for their own sins in rejecting Him for their own self-righteousness.
They do not need God's gifts given through baptism because they have sinned, they need them because they are sinners.The baptizing of children is totally unnecessary for many reasons...
One is that they probably have not sinned yet, although they will, for sure, someday.
Because they need what God gives through baptism.The other is that they have no concept of what sin is or being guilty or the need to be forgiven or even the act of repentance.... So what good is baptizing a totally oblivious human.
No, these are the qualities of a SAVED person. According to scripture, only those whom God has justified and granted the gifts of repentance and faith in Christ are capable of doing the things you list above.Being aware of your sin, admitting that you are a sinner, having the desire to be forgiven, repenting of these sins and consciously turning from doing sinful things..,,, These are the qualities of not only an accountable person but one with a heart to be saved.
Which is normal for an adult, adding only catechesis to your list, but this not a prescribed order or a scriptural requirement. God can give his gifts to his little ones because it is not they who must earn or qualify for them, but God who is graciously giving his gifts.Once you have taken the steps by admitting and repenting, asking for forgiveness... accepting Christ as your only hope of salvation by what He did at Calvary.... then you are baptized in obedience to Christ.
Which is the beauty of infant baptism. The child can do absolutely nothing but lie there and passively receive God's precious gifts. They don't think they are doing anything at all to earn or deserve God's favor. They cannot even conceive of trying to please God by their own works or merits. They are the very image of what Christ meant when he said that we must receive his kingdom in the same way as a little child would.Baptizing an infant only makes the parents and the church members happy. The child is not even aware of what is going on.
I don't subscribe to the concept "age" of accountability. There is A "point" of accountability which is different for everyone.
Most Christians, from quite a variety of theological orientations, think that infants and young children are saved. Not because they're sinless, but by the grace of God. I'm not selling any particular view here, but if this is right, ability to comprehend is more a prerequisite for people to be responsible than for them to be saved.So is that a prerequisite for God to save us?ability to comprehend
While this is a lovely sentiment, and one that I share, we simply cannot make up doctrine from our own human hopes and desires. We must base our doctrines on the unchanging word of God. Try as they might, no one has ever discovered a passage of canonical scripture that clearly states that people below a certain age or with a diminished ability to reason are saved in any way other than through faith in the promises of God fulfilled in Jesus Christ.Most Christians, from quite a variety of theological orientations, think that infants and young children are saved. Not because they're sinless, but by the grace of God.
I'm not selling any particular view here, but if this is right, ability to comprehend is more a prerequisite for people to be responsible than for them to be saved.
OK. So if a person reaches that "point" of accountability unsaved, and he dies, he is condemned, correct?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?