The Immaculate Conception Error
- Thread starter emekrus
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Valiant, if I had my way, all amillennialist and their thinking would not be allowed on this site or any site. God is just and is not going to condemn any child to judgment who doesn't even know that he exists yet! A just born child hasn't even lived according to the sinful nature to know that he needs a savior. Ah, he's back on ignore where he and all Amil's ought to be!
Originally Posted by Ahwatukee
Good day Roberth,
"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (1 Cor.7:14)
"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (1 Cor.7:14)
but even you with your limited intelligence must see that if some babies are clean, others are unclean. That means that the reason some are clean is that they have a Saviour.
The Scripture nowhere states what happens to new born children, but the one you quoted is the nearest to saying that many are born unclean, which would mean condemnation.
Incidentally this has nothing to do with amilllennialism. It is a totally separate issue. You are so bigoted that it is almost unbelievable. You need to get your soul in order. And I mean that. You degrade the site
B
All of us were conceived in sin and there is no question about it. Children who have not reached the age of accountability, which differs with each person, is 'safe' but not saved. The light of the gospel has not shone unto them for their understanding. They do not have a vocabulary or a capacity in their mind and soul to grasp the gospel and their conscience has no ability to discern good and evil. Children cannot be held accountable for what they have no capacity to understand, the same goes for the mentally disabled who have no capacity.
I think we need to be very careful before being dogmatic about things that Scripture has not revealed. Scripture nowhere tells us what happens to babes who die, nor does it refer to an age of accountability. We argue from our inadequate understanding of what is involved. How do we know what goes on in the spirit of a child? How do we know when they can discern good and evil? If the wicked go astray from the womb how do we know how God will judge their situation? We arrogantly assume that we are in a position to know based on OUR idea of fairness. But we are not. Many of God's decisions seem unfair. What you posit results in as many problems as it seems to solve. Nor does it answer the question as to how God sees some babies as 'clean' and some as 'unclean'. If the difference did not matter why did Paul not say so?
Hey Roberth,
AN infant? There have been countless number of infants that died even before they could exercise their choice of whether to sin or not.
Do you think God is sitting up there with a frown on his face or his palms on his face saying, "Ohhh look! That baby did not sin!
He does not need a savior! I have made a mistake by declaring all men sinners in Romans 3:23 through Paul! Now what about the sacrifice of my son? It went waste for that child! I hope there will be enough sinners in the future!"
So what if a baby has never sinned? Isn't that what God wants for every human being: that no one should sin? Doesn't purity and sinlessness make God happy?
Is God happy with the "OS" description of a baby born with horns and a tail; dripping with evil as he is delivered out of the womb; and once he is out he begins to spew out lies to such an extent that one would want to break his teeth (that he does not have in first place)??? And what would the little fella, who is totally at the mercy of others, lie about, when he can do nothing but cry? What truth does he know that he would lie? Have you heard an infant lying by saying, "Hey, you're not my mommy!" or "There is no God!"
I have resorted to sarcasm which I usually refrain from, for the very reason that you want to assert that a baby is born with OS and therefore needs a Savior.
And the basis of your presumptions is Bible verses that have not explicitly said what you are saying.
If that did not answer your question, some others have answered it on this thread.
AN infant? There have been countless number of infants that died even before they could exercise their choice of whether to sin or not.
Do you think God is sitting up there with a frown on his face or his palms on his face saying, "Ohhh look! That baby did not sin!
He does not need a savior! I have made a mistake by declaring all men sinners in Romans 3:23 through Paul! Now what about the sacrifice of my son? It went waste for that child! I hope there will be enough sinners in the future!" So what if a baby has never sinned? Isn't that what God wants for every human being: that no one should sin? Doesn't purity and sinlessness make God happy?
Is God happy with the "OS" description of a baby born with horns and a tail; dripping with evil as he is delivered out of the womb; and once he is out he begins to spew out lies to such an extent that one would want to break his teeth (that he does not have in first place)??? And what would the little fella, who is totally at the mercy of others, lie about, when he can do nothing but cry? What truth does he know that he would lie? Have you heard an infant lying by saying, "Hey, you're not my mommy!" or "There is no God!"
I have resorted to sarcasm which I usually refrain from, for the very reason that you want to assert that a baby is born with OS and therefore needs a Savior.
And the basis of your presumptions is Bible verses that have not explicitly said what you are saying.
If that did not answer your question, some others have answered it on this thread.
Originally Posted by valiant
I think we need to be very careful before being dogmatic about things that Scripture has not revealed. Scripture nowhere tells us what happens to babes who die, nor does it refer to an age of accountability. We argue from our inadequate understanding of what is involved. How do we know what goes on in the spirit of a child? How do we know when they can discern good and evil? If the wicked go astray from the womb how do we know how God will judge their situation? We arrogantly assume that we are in a position to know based on OUR idea of fairness. But we are not. Many of God's decisions seem unfair. What you posit results in as many problems as it seems to solve. Nor does it answer the question as to how God sees some babies as 'clean' and some as 'unclean'. If the difference did not matter why did Paul not say so?
You can be dogmatic about the concept of OS, when the Bible never even supports that view.
You make babies to be evil personified, and then you go lull.......and then you say that you leave judgement to God. You leave this out as a grey area, because it will annihilate your concept of OS.
When you call babies evil and guilty (being careful to avoid the word "doomed"), you are indeed passing judgments on where babies stand before God, even before they can understand right and wrong!
You make babies to be evil personified, and then you go lull.......and then you say that you leave judgement to God. You leave this out as a grey area, because it will annihilate your concept of OS.
When you call babies evil and guilty (being careful to avoid the word "doomed"), you are indeed passing judgments on where babies stand before God, even before they can understand right and wrong!
No Sir! All saved people have crucified the old man with Christ. They are now a new creation.
The old man is no longer in charge as in Romans 7. In Romans 7, the old man is in charge because the unrepentant person submits to the old man, just as Paul used to do in his past.
More on this later.
Bye and be blessed!
The old man is no longer in charge as in Romans 7. In Romans 7, the old man is in charge because the unrepentant person submits to the old man, just as Paul used to do in his past.
Bye and be blessed!
Originally Posted by valiant
That is the most absurd statement you have yet made, and that is saying something. The child is sanctified because one of the parents is a believer. It occurs BEFORE baptism. Infant baptism is unable to make anyone clean and in fact is unscriptural..
That is the most absurd statement you have yet made, and that is saying something. The child is sanctified because one of the parents is a believer. It occurs BEFORE baptism. Infant baptism is unable to make anyone clean and in fact is unscriptural..
I have shown you quite clearly that it not only supports it, it presses it home.
The Psalmist does so, not I. I just believe God. All men are 'evil personified'.
Isn't that the best place to leave it when we are in ignorance of the truth?
Rubbish. It does not affect OS and it is a grey area.
I have never said guilty. You lie again.
I never pass judgment on things the Scriptures are silent about. Only big mouths do that.