- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,393
- Reaction score
- 2,406
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
We'll have to agree to disagree that you've made your case.
Not funny but true memes.
- Thread starter Tarheel Baptist
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,393
- Reaction score
- 2,406
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
You cut that train of thought off a little prematurely, didn't you?
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. (12-13)
Death is the consequence of sin, and there is no imputing sin where there is no law. Nonetheless--
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (14)
Adam had a law--"don't eat from this tree"--that he disobeyed and fell thereby. But there was no commandment given to his descendants, and hence no law to disobey, nonetheless everyone after Adam until Mosesdied anyway.
Let that sink into your head: your supposedly innocent little babies died anyway.
Since death is the consequence of sin, infant deaths demonstrate that they are accounted guilty of sin. Adam did not fall alone: every one of his descendants, Jesus Christ excepted, fell in him.
Adam is the only person explicitly called a type of Christ in the Bible. It's notable that he is a type of contrasts rather than similarity. In Adam, his people fell. His guilt is imputed to his family, and they suffer death, the consequence of his sin. In Christ, his people are redeemed. His righteousness is imputed to his family, and they receive eternal life, the consequence of his obedience. In Adam all die; in Christ all are made alive.
The "for if ... much more" and "as the one did this ... so the one did that" construction of the remainder of this chapter just makes the point so much clearer. Paul assumes that the consequences of Adam's transgression were universal in scope, and that what Adam did, Christ had the power to undo.
Christ's headship over the church is predicated on Adam's headship over the human race. Pelagians commit the error of denying original sin, that Adam's descendents could be counted guilty of Adam's sin. Of course, the Pelagians also deny substitutionary atonement, that anyone could be counted blameless by having Christ's righteousness imputed to them. Deny one, and you deny the other.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,186
- Reaction score
- 134
- Points
- 63
Dogs and cats don't die because they have sinned against God but as part of the consequences of Adam's sin. The same with infants.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,393
- Reaction score
- 2,406
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Don't change the subject. Paul isn't addressing animal death. Nice job at handwaving away his actual argument, though, instead of dealing with it.
Furthermore, you have dehumanized babies by likening them to beasts.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,186
- Reaction score
- 134
- Points
- 63
Just like John MacArthur says, it isn't a question of age of accountability but "condition of accountability," Salvation comes through repentance and faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. People go to hell because they have knowingly and willingly broken God's moral law. When every man and woman stands before God at the last judgment, "every mouth will be stopped and all the world will become guilty before God."
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Infants have no knowledge of the law or sin and there will be no works to follow them to judgment. Believe what you will.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,393
- Reaction score
- 2,406
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Funny how you start your argument there, instead of the verses immediately preceding it: a litany of Old Testament passages saying there is no such thing as an innocent human being: "none is righteous, no, not one" (v. 10). You fail to read verse 19 in that light.
Scripture says not one is righteous; you claim some are righteous. That is a direct contradiction of the word of God.
If Scripture made an exception for infants, we would not even be having this discussion.
I just want to point out to you, that the suffering depicted there actually happened--regularly--to infants offered to Molech. It happens now in the womb with saline abortion methods. Infants the world over are subject daily to horrific suffering and death while abiding in this world in which their treatment is truly abominable, and in which they would be bewildered by it.
And God did not and does not intervene on their behalf.
But your secondary error--your primary one being the thought that there is a way into the presence of the Father other than by grace through faith--is the thought that the spirit of an infant is an infant itself. Scripture gives you no reason to think that, and plenty of reasons to think otherwise.
Last edited:
Justify this statement.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 48
What sends them to hell? As I understand infants, there is no understanding of nothing? Am I wrong?
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 48
Tell an infant to go clean his or her room.
Tell the sick of the palsy to take up his bed and walk.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 48
Sick of the palsy is not an infant. A infant is not capable of reason nor is an infant capable of responding to the Holy Spirit.
LOL. Neither are they capable of walking. But keep going. You're proving my point and taking the conversation in the direction I've been wanting it to go.
What makes anyone capable of responding to the Holy Spirit?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,393
- Reaction score
- 2,406
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Their own guilt, or Adam's imputed to them.
Ignorance does not absolve one of guilt. Many of the sacrifices in the Levitical system were for unintentional sins. They still required atonement and forgiveness.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 48
Only God makes anyone capable. So, are you saying the Holy Spirit comes to an infant brings understanding to the infant and makes the infant capable of reason and at that point the infant then chooses?
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 48
I said this to the other guy but I think it applies to you as well.
So, are you saying the Holy Spirit comes to an infant brings understanding to the infant and makes the infant capable of reason and at that point the infant then chooses?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,473
- Reaction score
- 3,089
- Points
- 113
Calvinists believe no person chooses to be saved before they are quickened by the Spirit, so in that respect their logic is consistent with what they believe the soteriological process looks like, regardless of age.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,393
- Reaction score
- 2,406
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
The question doesn't apply to me.
I'm saying the things of God are spiritually discerned. The natural man, despite his cognitive development, cannot know the things of God, 1 Cor 2:14.
Are you saying the spirit of an infant is an infant itself?
What about those who meet their fate in an embryonic stage of development? Are their spirits embyros?
These memes are neither funny nor true.