Posted on 09/26/2004 10:53:56 AM PDT by daybreakcoming
I have a question about something that has rocked me to my Baptist core. I am also going to address the question to our pastor next week. My eight-year old brought home a study guide for parents to assist us in the "nuturing the faith of your child". It states: "Children are sinners and the implications are eternal" - "Our children are helpless sinners who deserve God's wrath".
Whatever happened to "Except ye be converted, and BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 18:3 ). And. "Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:13-14).
How are children who die, say at the age of four, covered? Are they doomed to God's wrath?
I take it you do not believe in Hell? Or just Hell for kids? I ask seriously, as you seem to be downplaying the punishment and condemnation part of God, which, as we all know, does in fact exist.
Well, he does specifically state that "God knows at what point they become accountable." Just as it is with adults, only God knows the heart.
You have some awfully pharisaical views of the world.
Mark 16:16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
John 3:19
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Luke 13:24
24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
It is about submission to Gods will.
Luke 9:23-25
23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
Why say all of these things if they are meaningless?
I am not a great fan of John MacArthur personally. I tend to find him arrogant and insular, to preach a standard I doubt he's ever had to struggle or fight his way to personally. As a rule, I can only bear to listen to his practical preaching if I preface everything he says with "Theoretically...."
But that is a *very* well-made and thought-provoking statement. Thanks for pinging me to it.
Dan
We share an understanding of the concept of "sin" that requires the ability to reason and to choose. Without the latter, there can not be the former.
It seems that others simply define sin as "something 'bad' happens." Not all "bad" behaviors are the result of a person "sinning."
If my three year old breaks something she is playing with, or something of her mom or dad's, there is an undesirable result. Something "bad" has happened.
But that is a far cry from saying that my toddler is guilty of sinning, cause she simply lacks the capacity to see how her actions, her choices can have consequences.
Most of the discussion on this topic is on this subject -- what are children actually "guilty" of? Is an impulsive toddler sinful or just simply "innocent" of knowing right and wrong?
SD
Very nice.
Unless those who assert that all are accountable, regardless of ability to reason and understand--this is the most persuasive.
Now, how would I counter that? I suppose I'd try to argue that David was a king and not a prophet. But then I'd be stuck with the problem that it exists in the texts, somehow against the will of God. Or, with his will, solely to confound us now?
I think you've found the scriptural QED.
Mr. McArthur's thinking seems to be muddied here.
If an infant has committed no actual sin, and if judgment is based on actual sin (per McArthur, "Scripture teaches that all condemned sinners earned their eternal punishment by their sins."), then why the need introduce the concept of election? Only sinners need the benefit of election. An infant, who has committed no actual sin, should get a free pass into heaven (according to McArthur's rationale). Election is not a free pass. Election is connected to Jesus dying for our sins.
McArthur may simply be an inconsistent or incomplete Calvinist.
The consistent Calvinist understands that salvation must deal with both actual sin and the indwelling sin nature. Actual sin is simply the manifestation of what is already in the heart (from conception). We were literally born in sin. We inherist that sin nature from our father, Adam. Election deals with both the guilt of original sin as well as any actual sins committed.
The consistent Calvinist would say something like, "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." (Westminster Confession of Faith, X:3). It does not attempt to penetrate into the question of who is elect. That is for God alone to know.
It reminded me of the disciples in the beginning of John 9.
Only the disciples didn't yet have the book of John to read so they could know better.
I remembered that ... I was a Baltimore Catechism person . I can still quote much of it
Speaking from personal experience, yes, children are sinners.
As a Mormon, you do not believe anyone is damned , so the argument is moot.
That implies that all children are born without sin and they do not need God's mercy to be saved.
I was born in sin (ask David:>)
Why would you even pay any attention to something like that? Think for yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.