Infants & Imputed Guilt

[ttruscott]

Due to my status, I must re-plant some threads here for my answer:

Today, 06:39 AM #1
The Remonstrant
Infants, Imputed Guilt & Interpreting Romans 5:12

First, thank you, Lee, for your response. Second, what follows is my response to your response which... takes issue with the conclusion of your response to my response.

Quote Originally posted by lee_merrill
What, they [infants] have no choice? What I ask people who are strong on free will, and then mysteriously forsake it in this area.
Infant Moral Responsibility(?)

My counter here for the moment is simply this: Why on earth should we suppose infants are morally responsible agents? To my mind such a notion is completely absurd. I would require strong scriptural evidence to reconsider my current stance of the issue.

My take:

When someone can answer my three objections to the doctrine of the innocence of babies, I will switch..I want to know how you reconcile my objections.

Are they innocent? No.
1. They have no free will to be saved or damned.
2. They are treated the same as those judged for sin.
3. Why are not all men saved this way?

Have you considered God's wrath? Noah's flood and the innocent babies in his day...?

Gen 6
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.
12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.
13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Also, when God smote the nations did He not order the killing of everyone? Do we not see that as judgement for sin?
EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt.
NU 21:3 The Israelites utterly destroy the Canaanites.
DT 2:33-34 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Sihon.
DT 3:6 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Og.

Children are not treated as innocents, are they? I guess it is not proof they are sinners since it may (not likely) be that GOD killed them in their innocence to send them on to heaven (except why do they get to be the lucky ones?).

Have you considered The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?
God was asked about sparing a city if HE found innocent people within it. God responded by saying that he would not destroy a city that had innocent people within it.

Presumably those two places had many babies inside. Why didn't God spare those cities since there were innocent babies in the cities?

Genesis 18:32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

Not even ten babies in all of two big cities? No, I think there was a normal contingent of babies and pregnant mothers etc, but I don't think they were counted as innocent in the eyes of the LORD's wrath. They may have been young but they were indeed under condemnation for sin.

I also think the wages of sin is death means that death is the proof of sin. Do those who think babies are innocent have proof their death is NOT from sin?

We know that a house divided against itself will fall so somehow this GOD of wrath must be reconciled with the Jesus who calls children to HIM and says that we must become like them to go to heaven ourselves. Either there must be two different classes of children involved in these stories or there must be some other difference, because we know that there is no difference between the Persons of the Trinity and Jesus mentions Sodom and Gomorrah without any hedging about children.

PLUS:

You need free will to sin AND to be saved for being sinless:
If babies who die prior to the age of accountability automatically go to heaven without any free will choice to become saved or to reject salvation, by a God who does not want people to go to hell as per:
2 Peter 3:9: ....He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance,

then WHY are NOT all humans saved this way if it is a legitimate way to be saved?

Why do some die to automatically go to heaven and some live to get tested, some to their annhilation or eternal torrment? Why some and not others?

I feel left out of the automatic heavenly club - God should have killed me as a child!! What a lot of suffering it would have saved the people I've hurt.

Peace, Ted

[technomage]

I feel left out of the automatic heavenly club - God should have killed me as a child!! What a lot of suffering it would have saved the people I've hurt.

Perhaps if you stopped taking legendary, anhistorical events (the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) as historical events, you'd be less worried about the situation. But if you insist on looking at them historically, then it helps if you do so accurately.

In the narrative, when God announces his intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, he and Abraham haggle about the number of people. Yet the standard for these people is not what you think--Abraham argues not for 10 "innocent" people, but ten "righteous" people. The two words are nowhere near synonymous in Hebrew religious thought (nor in modern Christian thought).

[ttruscott]

I like that...but,

Strong's H6662 - tsaddiyq

1) just, lawful, righteous
a) just, righteous (in government)
b) just, right (in one's cause)
c) just, righteous (in conduct and character)
d) righteous (as justified and vindicated by God)
e) right, correct, lawful

since tsaddiyq is not innocence, how does one get from innocence to righteousness except by a true free will decison? How can a pre- or new born do that? Yet they are still judged and condemned.

I don't think the little chink in the arguement you saw takes us anywhere...sigh, since,

if you remember Matthew 5:20
"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

it takes righteousness, not innocence to get into heaven.

<shrug>

Peace, Ted


Peace, Ted

[technomage]

since tsaddiyq is not innocence, how does one get from innocence to righteousness except by a true free will decison?

In Christian theology (which I do understand, though I m a non-believer), such righteousness cannot be earned--it must be received. Various branches of Christian theology have somewhat differing methods on how this occurs.

How can a pre- or new born do that? Yet they are still judged and condemned.

There is a widespread belief within Christianity that infants (and those who lack the capacity to make moral decisions) are protected by their innocence--they are still "fallen," but the theory goes that God makes special provision for them. The theory is grossly extrabiblical.

As for me? I have no part in the Christian argument that there is any "separation" between God and man. "Sin" is solely a human invention.

[ttruscott]

In Christian theology (which I do understand, though I m a non-believer), such righteousness cannot be earned--it must be received. Various branches of Christian theology have somewhat differing methods on how this occurs.

Righteousness need only be received if it has been previously rejected by a free will decision to reject it...if one has never sinned, but always followed GOD's will by choice, one is righteous.

So, proof of reality destroys both innocence and free will.

Peace, Ted

[technomage]

Righteousness need only be received if it has been previously rejected by a free will decision to reject it...if one has never sinned, but always followed GOD's will by choice, one is righteous.

Logically, that only holds true if one was born in a state of righteousness, and righteousness had to be consciously rejected, rather than casually lost. Mainstream Christians deny both--to them, all humans are born in a state of "sin," and there need be no conscious decision undertaken to attain that state.

Further, Christian theology states that however moral a person may be, he cannot (on his own) attain a level of righteousness sufficient to be granted access to heaven.

As I said earlier, it's not a position that I believe, but I understand their teachings.

So, proof of reality destroys both innocence and free will.

I'm not sure either what you mean by that, nor how it connects with the balance of your statement.

[ttruscott]

I am not a traditionalist which is why I am relegated to the unorthodox section.

Little or no part of traditional interpretations of our fall and our birth hold any sway with me at all, especially in the area of our free will.

I think if you are born on earth it is pretty conclusive evidence you chose sin in your spirit life by a true free will choice based upon faith, ie hope without proof, in your pre-earthly life.

The original sin is by our own pre-earth choice, no magic finagle with/from Adam. The whole Adamic thing was allowed to be developed to hide our pre-conception existence until the end times.

Therefore I think babies may be 6000+ or - year old sinners in new bodies and have no vested interest in their (supposed) innocence, which was ended forever when GOD proved HIS divinity and power (Rom. 1:20) AFTER all our true free will decisions were finished.

Peace, Ted

[technomage]

I am not a traditionalist which is why I am relegated to the unorthodox section.

I am aware of that. Please understand that I am not trying to persuade you--if I were to do so, as I am a non-Christian, it would be positively ludicrous, though I'm sure the traditionalist Christians would be largely amused.

I think if you are born on earth it is pretty conclusive evidence you chose sin in your spirit life by a true free will choice based upon faith, ie hope without proof, in your pre-earthly life.

This argument holds no more merit with me than theirs. What is this "sin" of which you speak? It does not exist--there is no "sin" separating us from the Gods.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Tru, I don't believe all babies are automatically in heaven. That is not a universal Christian belief. All elect babies are. That doesn't mean all babies are elect.

[Dee Dee Warren]

The whole Adamic thing was allowed to be developed to hide our pre-conception existence until the end times.

I am going to regret this.

What makes you say that?

[KingsGambit]

Tru, I don't believe all babies are automatically in heaven. That is not a universal Christian belief. All elect babies are. That doesn't mean all babies are elect.

As far as I've seen, the entire theological basis for the idea of universal infant salvation seems to come from David's statement that he would see his son again someday. That seems far too flimsy to built an entire doctrine on, IMO. The only thing I profess to believe on the issue is that God will do what is right.

[Dee Dee Warren]

That is the basis I have seen as well... as if everything that might have applied to David, would apply to everyone!

[ttruscott]

...

This argument holds no more merit with me than theirs. What is this "sin" of which you speak? It does not exist--there is no "sin" separating us from the Gods.

Only since you have expressed your curiosity about my unortho position...:)

The sin I speak of is the rejection of GOD's invitation that we accept HIS purpose for our creation by a true free will choice, by faith, ie by hope without proof.

As per the requirments of a true free will decision, full disclosure was made of the consequences of choosing either way with acceptance leading to election and the gospel promise of salvation (never judgment) for any sin we might choose, and
rejection putting one outside of election, outside of salvation and a destiny only to perdition.

[Faith is not just "not by proof" but also "by hope."
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Learning the full details of the (supposed) consequences of our decision made the choice a true choice and not just a guess. But knowing these (supposed) consequences also gave us a framework from which we could choose,

choose which kind of life we wanted to have, which kind of life we hoped to have by making this choice:

1. a life with a GOD who was perfect and created us to join HIM in that perfection and in loving holy communion forever but who would damn anyone who became HIS eternal enemy by rejecting HIS plan for their creation,
or
2. a life in which we were just as important as the false god, better in fact because we were not liars about ourselves. A life in which we are our own GOD and our laws and our love is the epitomé of perfection. A life in which we bow to no one.

The vast majority chose to bow to GOD's will, choosing to become loving spirits and elect members in His Church with their names written into the Book of Life,

but a few rejected the Three, calling Them liars and boasters and claimed they were the equal of the Three and so refused to bow, declaring that they too were worthy of worship and that the love they had already was as good as Godly love anytime. And thus from their deepest hopes for that kind of life, they became the eternal enemies of GOD, condemned to be damned.

God then told His newly elected church to "come out from among" the evil ones, explaining that only if the church rejected the evil ones in their heart could they become holy (untainted by sin) and learn how to love as God loved.

But some of the church at this time chose to rebel against this call to reject the evil ones, claiming a real love for them, that they were not all that bad etc, thus falling into idolatry and sin themselves and becoming sinners outside the will but not the love of God.

God again called all the remaining (so far) obedient to come apart from the fallen church but some refused this call and fell themselves into becoming sinners and so it was repeated until every spirit had finished choosing exactly where it stood in relation to the call / will of God and their relationship with other sinners.

This process of a true free will choice separated all created spirits into 2 main camps; those damned, condemned to hell (the goats) and those predestined to be conformed to the image of HIS Son as His holy church, (the sheep).

Church members were also separated:
those who never rejected God's will for them and were His Holy Church and
those who sinned at the first call to come away from the damned, and
those who sinned later by refusing to leave behind their elect but now sinful friends and so on and so on, all collectively called His sinful/fallen church.

The consequence of some of HIS elect becoming sinners meant that the judgment had to be postponed until the last of HIS sinful elect was redeemed and made holy, ready to damn HIS eternal enemies.

Once this process was completed, all free uncoerced choice ended when God in His Majesty revealed Himself in all His Power and Glory by HIS creation of the Universe, proving to all the spirits the full consequences of their choice of bowing to Him or of rejecting Him, and ever knee did bow and every voice did sing HIS praise. (Rom. 1:20)

God created the Universe and earth as a place His elect but fallen church could be born into bodies and live with the damned to thereby learn the true nature of the never relenting evil in the hearts of the damned until they learned to be holy and ready to damn the reprobate.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

I am going to regret this.

What makes you say that?

A combination of the meme of hidden things to be revealed at the end times with the leading from the Holy Spirit that Pre-Conception Existence Theology's time has come.

:)

Spport verses available if requested... ;)

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

As far as I've seen, the entire theological basis for the idea of universal infant salvation seems to come from David's statement that he would see his son again someday. That seems far too flimsy to built an entire doctrine on, IMO. The only thing I profess to believe on the issue is that God will do what is right.

The basis is to be found in the rise of safe abortions to my mind...and guilt.

Peace, Ted