Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Romans 3:23 since all have sinned and continually fall short of the glory of God, |
Subject: Can a toddler go to heaven? |
Bible Note: 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. |