Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | disciplerami | 76844 | ||
Hi Tim, I'm struggling to find the answer to the following statement you've made in the previous post: "My understanding is this: Christ's atoning work on the cross covers the guilt of original sin. Thus, no one is condemned for Adam's sin," There is something in this that is causing me to pause. I've never heard anyone say before that Christ's death on the cross covers the guilt of original sin. Typically, the atoning death of Christ is not qualified in such a way. His work atones for sin, but where the Bible says it atones for original sin, I don't know. The end result of what you believe is that children are saved until they reach an age where they willfully sin? Do I have that right? That is my position as well. How we come to the same conclusion is through different means, but the end is the same. The differences between us seems to be one of semantics. You believe that a child is born with a sin nature: as you see it, this is the nature of Adam after the fall. I believe that a child is born with a nature that can sin: as I see it, this is the same nature Adam had before the fall. We both agree that all men will sin and fall short of the glory of God. And further, you write: "...His grace covers our guilt until such a time as we can choose to obey or disobey. Once we reach that point, we all (because of our sin nature) will choose to disobey..." I'm glad to see that you allow that whatever nature you see that child has, you see that it allows it to choose good or evil. My only differene would be that the child may at times choose to do good and sometimes it chooses to do evil: life is full of choices. For the evil it chooses, it falls short of the glory of God. It then needs a Savior. Because it also still has the freedom of choice, when it hears the Gospel and believes it, God forgives the young person for his or her faith. You've probably heard this all before, but I would appreciate if you read it again. If you see a chink in the argument, please point it out. Thanks for listening to my point of view. Good day. |
||||||
2 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | Morant61 | 76924 | ||
Greetings Disciplerami! Thanks for the response and the questions my friend! Rom. 5:12-21 is the theological foundation for the statements I made about original sin and the atonment of orignal sin. This passage compares and contrasts the acts of Adam and Christ, along with the consequences of each. The entire passage makes the point that the extent of Christ's act is the same as the extent of Adam's sin. Adam's sin brought death and condemnation to all men, in the same way, Christ's death brings life and righteousness for all men. One of the key verses is Rom. 5:18, "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." Now, there are two ways to view this statement. First, one could say that all are saved by Christ's death. Secondly, one could say that Paul is speaking of the effects of Adam's sin. The second choice is the correct one because Rom. 5:17 indicates that the gift of God must be received or accepted. Therefore, not everyone is automatically saved. So, my understanding is simply this: Christ atoned for all sin. But, He also atoned for original sin, so that no one is condemned for what Adam did. So, every baby is covered by Christ's atonement until such a time as they will to sin against God. This actually isn't a new position. Augustus Hopkins Strong said the following: "The atonement has come to all men and upon all men. Its coextensiveness with the effects of Adam's sin is seen in that all creatures, such as infants and insane persons, incapable of refusing it, are saved without their consent, just as they were involved in the sin of Adam without their consent. The reason why others are not saved is because when the atonement comes to them and upon them, instead of consenting to be included in it, they reject it. If they are born under the curse, so likewise they are born under the atonement which is intended to remove that curse; they remain under its shelter till they are old enough to repudiate it; they shut out its influences as a man closes his window-blind to shut out the beams of the sun; they ward them off by direct opposition, as a man builds dykes around his field to keep out the streams which would otherwise flow in and fertilize the soil." Source: "Systematic Theology", pg. 773. Well, I have some work to do now! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | disciplerami | 76994 | ||
Romans 5:12-21: Hi Tim, Your explanation works better than some, but it still doesn't seem to fit with my understand of the Bible scheme. I wonder where is the Scripture that shows this process of keeping children under grace until they can be held accountable? Where is the delineation in Scripture to prove "Christ atoned for all sin. But, He also atoned for original sin"? Where is the two-step process? You write: "The entire passage makes the point that the extent of Christ's act is the same as the extent of Adam's sin. Adam's sin brought death and condemnation to all men, in the same way, Christ's death brings life and righteousness for all men." You believe that the effect of Adam's sin was immediate and spread to all men. You also see the atonement of Christ as issuing forth from the cross, immediately and completely to all men. It has the effect of covering the sin nature, but then it is said to have a second stage/application at the age of accountability where someone either accepts it or rejects it. It is this second application that I would see as the first reception of it by the individual. I do not see the effect of the cross as being necessary at all for a person until they reach the age of accountability. Atonement rescues us from the wrath of God, which is stored up BECAUSE of personal sin (Eph.5:6; 2 Thess 1:6ff; Rom. 1:18). And the atonement depicted in the Bible comes BY repentance and brings forgiveness (Acts 2:38; 3:19). Where is the atonement for the sin nature when there is not sin committed and no repentance? The only thing we know of that brings separation from God is personal sin: “to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). When the Holy Spirit is come, “He will reprove the world of sin . . ., because THEY BELIEVE not on Me” (John 16:8-9). This passage shows that God's judgment is on the basis of whether men receive the Gospel or not. When man's sinful state is spoken of, it is always related to some act done against the will of God. Also, this immediate blessing upon the child doesn't seem to carry with it all of the blessings associated with the atonement that comes through Christ. Why, instead of seeing it as a temporary shield from condemnation, isn't it allowed to be a total cleansing and regeneration of the child [I mean, if a person is going to believe children are condemned]? You know, why isn't the sin nature gone because of the work of Christ at the Cross? This seems to be an attempt to still explain why everyone sins: they still have the sin nature, nothing is really different even though they've been blessed to some degree by the act of Christ. So nothing is really different, the person still has the sin nature according to this view, but the person somehow has the ability to accept or reject it. So there is a difference beyond simply being covered until an age of accountability. The person is saved until the age of accountability, as you say, "one could say that Paul is speaking of the effects of Adam's sin." But your view indicates that the sin nature isn't as controlling as it is often explained to be: e.g., hostile to God, unable to do any spiritual good, utterly sinful. So the repurcussions of sin are lifted, but the sin nature is still there. Yet, the person isn't so bound by the sin nature that it can't choose to accept or reject the Gospel: therefore part of the controlling effects of sin nature are also altered by the atonement received in infancy. Tim, my head is swirling trying to understand this position of yours. Do me a favor, if I've stated anything wrong about your position, let me know. I'm truly interested in getting to the bottom of this. God bless, Dan p.s. It's a funny thing about books on Systematic Theology. I've seen 'em conclude just the opposite. |
||||||
4 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | Morant61 | 77094 | ||
Greetings Dan! Sorry it took me a few days to get back to you! I had a very busy weekend! Allow me summarize my position in this way. I don't believe that there is a two step process, but that there is only one atonement for all sin. Objectively, atonement was made for all people and all sin for all time on the cross. Subjectively, according to Rom. 5:17, this gift of grace must be received. However, it can't be received until someone is old enough to know to receive it or reject it. I think that this is what Paul was referring to in Rom. 7:9, "Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died." The end result is simply that no one is condemned for Adam's sin, but only for their own sin. Concerning theology books, this is definitely an Arminian perspective on the atonement. I would not expect, for instance, that those of a Calvinist perspective would agree with this view, since they do not accept that Christ atoned for the sins of everyone. Well, I need to run! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | disciplerami | 77126 | ||
I see that our positions are very close; not exactly, but close. Thanks for the response. Disciplerami |
||||||