Theology Club: Why is it believed that all men are condemned from birth?

[Cross Reference]

Oh my gorsh!

 

[Ardima]

I appreciated reading you in this thread.

Thank you.

I think you may have a few minor things wrong here.

I can never claim to have everything right, and have been proven wrong on several occasions; however, until I am proven wrong, I will stand completely on the understanding that has been given me thus far.

The Calvinists don't see 'sinfulness' as a mere potential to sin. They see it as a propensity. They say that the only choices a normal person has are to sin or to sin more. A Calvinist here has emphasized that people sin because they are already sinful in their natures and have no ability to choose not to sin.

In a sense they are right, but only because we are born already condemned in Adam. The original potential was given to Adam. The problem I have with Calvinists (and Armenians alike) is the scope of salvation that they present. On one side (Calvinism) you have a god who will not bring about salvation to all men simply because he decreed that only certain ones have been called despite the fact that it is God's will that all men come to the knowledge of the Truth. On the other side (Armenianism) you have a god who can't save all men because man has a free will that is capable of overpowering the will of God for all men to come to the knowledge of the Truth.

Calvinists tend to ignore the fact that man was given a will; whereas Armenians tend to ignore the fact that God is sovereign. But both have the same humanistic, egocentric, elitism mentality that if God eventually brings about salvation to all men then, even though they were chosen as God's elect, they are no better than anyone else. It literally bothers them that God loves all men equally. There is a sense of self-accomplishment and plain hubris when we claim that "I will spend forever in heaven while that sinner over there will spend forever in hell." This type of thinking disgusts me because it goes against the very Nature of God.

Of course I disagree with this and I suppose you do too but I am not sure you grasp how far reaching Calvinism is.

Yes I do disagree, and I do understand how far of a reach Calvinism has; however, the problem is not only Calvinism. The one thing that reaches farther than any false doctrine has ever reached is humanism. We are so self-centered that we will believe anything that allows us to be as close to God-like as possible without relying on God for that likeness. We humans are experts at devising ways of trying to bypass the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Some Calvinists find the idea that babies will automatically be condemned too distasteful and so they have concocted a way round the problem by saying that whilst all men the moment they are born are sinful, nevertheless babies haven't actually sinned and since condemnation is for sin, then the babies won't be condemned. There are obvious problems with this from the point of view of self-consistency. In the case of babies they have admitted that the doctrine of predestination is not always true because it would be logical to kill babies at birth to secure them a place in eternal life. But if God has predestined all people already, then if we do murder babies we have either got round that predestination or we were the instruments of those babies being granted eternal life. This seems a completely depraved way of thinking. It is also renders the whole concept of inherited sinfulness as the reason why God shows mercy to some as meaningless.

Death was part of the curse on Adam and as such we are cursed in him (for we all die). Death is upon all because sin exists period, not because of any specific sin each person commits. Condemnation therefore is not sin specific. Sin is anything that is done that is outside of the love of God. We know this because Loving God with all of your heart, mind, strength, and soul is the first commandment according to Jesus; and all other commandments hang on this one. At conception everything that is going on with the development of a child is of self-preservation. David understood this and said that in sin his mother had conceived him.

Also, God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was a command, not a prophecy. Adam had the choice not to.

Yes it was a command, but it was a prophetic "when you do this" command not an "if you do this" command. There are no "if's" with the will of God.

However, I agree that Adam did not fall from something. This can be proved by the fact that God stationed an angel to prevent Adam from also eating from the tree of life. So he cannot have eaten from the tree of life before. He was in fact neither mortal nor immortal before he ate the fruit from the tree.

We do not know if Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life before they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or not. To say they did or not is pure speculation. We do know that death was part of the curse and therefore it is not unreasonable to think that the tree of life would not have had any effect on them until the curse. A curse from God would have nullified any effects from any tree that existed in the garden. This could be why God stationed an angel to guard the garden. You are correct in saying that he was neither immortal of mortal before eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There was nothing to to describe the life that they had
before eating the fruit.

 

[Cross Reference]

In a sense they are right, but only because we are born already condemned in Adam.

When knowing that a baby is innocent until the age of accountability, how can you or anyone persist in your thinking that man is born condemned? Perhaps your definition of the word "condemned" needs be offered up.

Please do so.

 

[Ardima]

When knowing that a baby is innocent until the age of accountability, how can you or anyone persist in your thinking that man is born condemned? Perhaps your definition of the word "condemned" needs be offered up.

Please do so.

I would love to see the scripture that says there is an "age of accountability"... At what age was Adam held accountable? There is no innocent blood except that of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. If there was then God would have contradicted His very own nature in His commands for the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman and child (including babies), and cattle that were within the cities they took while conquering the promised land.

Besides that, the fact that infants die is proof enough that we are condemned from birth...

 

[Cross Reference]

I would love to see the scripture that says there is an "age of accountability"... At what age was Adam held accountable? .

1. Adam wasn't a baby.

2. The age of accountability is something only God can determine.

Thirdly, you should consider this from Jesus before you go any further I'm exercising your opinion:

"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven/God." Matthew 18:3; Mark 10:14(KJV)

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:14 (KJV)

 

[Ardima]

1. Adam wasn't a baby.

2. The age of accountability is something only God can determine.

Thirdly, you should consider this from Jesus before you go any further I'm exercising your opinion:

"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven/God." Matthew 18:3; Mark 10:14(KJV)

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:14 (KJV)

None of these verses have to do with an age of accountability. It has to do with us having child-like faith.

I guess the underlying question that should be asked is what we believe babies are condemned to. I believe the condemnation that we are all under is condemnation to death. Christianity has gotten so caught up in whether or not someone is going to heaven or hell that they forget the bigger picture. The truth is Heaven and Hell do not matter. Neither can give you grace or mercy, and they are not the focus of the Bible.

 

[patrick jane]

In this use of the word condemn do we not need to know what it means and why it is assumed man is, from birth?


If using one word to define, please elaborate..

Condemn =

= Adam
= Garden
= Sin

pick one. or all of the above. folks will have other "one" word definitions, but one word won't sum it up for you. Genesis. Read. Elaborate - atrol:

 

[Cross Reference]

= Adam
= Garden
= Sin

pick one. or all of the above. folks will have other "one" word definitions, but one word won't sum it up for you. Genesis. Read. Elaborate - atrol:

I pick none. You elaborate.

 

[beloved57]

Those Christ died for are born not condemned, but reconciled to God Rom 5:10 !

 

[Cross Reference]

None of these verses have to do with an age of accountability. It has to do with us having child-like faith.

Sure they do. Jesus said "little children" and not young adults. Child-like faith is of a little child. A little child is counted as already being in Christ because he is blameless as we must be in order for us to even see the Kingdom of God.

I guess the underlying question that should be asked is what we believe babies are condemned to.

How can it be an underlying question when your premise is wrong? You are presuming on a crooked foundation.

I believe the condemnation that we are all under is condemnation to death.

But death and destruction is not a condemnation unless, in the final analysis, it means separation from God.

Christianity has gotten so caught up in whether or not someone is going to heaven or hell that they forget the bigger picture. The truth is Heaven and Hell do not matter. Neither can give you grace or mercy, and they are not the focus of the Bible.

I fully agree. What do you believe the bigger picture to be?

 

[Ardima]

Sure they do. Jesus said "little children" and not young adults. Child-like faith is of a little child. A little child is counted as already being in Christ because he is blameless as we must be in order for us to even see the Kingdom of God.

As much as I would like to believe this, the only way this could be true is if children are found righteous at birth, and there are several verses that contradict the "age of accountability" as you describe it.

I will list one. (Romans 3:10) There is none righteous; no, not one.

How can it be an underlying question when your premise is wrong? You are presuming on a crooked foundation.

The premise that there is not one single righteous person at birth is correct. All righteousness, Faith, Grace, Mercy, Truth, and Love are built on the foundation of Christ; whom we do not know at birth.

But death and destruction is not a condemnation unless, in the final analysis, it means separation from God.

Alas, death is separation. When born we are born spiritually separated from God.

I fully agree. What do you believe the bigger picture to be?

The Focus of the Bible is the Love of God toward men. The theme of the Bible is the Gospel of Jesus Christ; for it is only through the Gospel that we truly know the Love of God toward usward. Therefore the bigger picture is not whether or not someone is going to Heaven or Hell; rather, it is about God experiencing us through a relationship found only in Jesus Christ. This is why Jesus will say to many: "Depart from me for I never knew you."

Heaven and Hell do not matter. All that matters is our God and Savior, Jesus Christ; for in Him we have all spiritual blessings in heavenly places. (Ephesians 1:3)

 

[Cross Reference]

As much as I would like to believe this, the only way this could be true is if children are found righteous at birth, and there are several verses that contradict the "age of accountability" as you describe it.

Lets stop here. I said Children were innocent as in blameless. That goes hand in glove with "where there is no law, there is no sin".

Here:
"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." Romans 4:15 (KJV)

"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Romans 5:13 (KJV)

Please. Lets end the discussion on the fact that babies have no knowledge of any kind of law -- period.

OMT: Jesus Christ wasn't around for 4000+ years while babies were being born ___ innocent.

 

[Ardima]

Lets stop here. I said Children were innocent as in blameless. That goes hand in glove with "where there is no law, there is no sin".

Here:
"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." Romans 4:15 (KJV)

"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Romans 5:13 (KJV)

I was actually going to bring up these verses. The problem with using these verses as proof text for an age of accountability is that these verses actually disprove it. Where there is no law there is no transgression is correct; but, the fact is the law is and has been around since Adam. Remember when God told Adam not to eat the tree? If God would not have given that command then Adam eating of the fruit would not have been a sin. Just because babies are born ignorant of the law does not mean that the law does not exist. Just because someone doesn't know what they have done is a sin does not make what they have done any less a sin according to the law.

Please. Lets end the discussion on the fact that babies have no knowledge of any kind of law -- period.

Given the OP, that is quite impossible unless you want to end the thread. I never claimed that babies have any kind of knowledge of the law; in fact, I believe that they are born with very little knowledge, period. But the lack of knowledge does not make one innocent, just ignorant. The law was there when I was born, when you were born, and even when my three year old son was born. We are not born without the law; we are born under the law, yet ignorant of it.

The good news is that the redemptive work of Christ covers the same complete scope as the law, all men. And just as man is born in ignorance of the law, he is also born in the ignorance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Every man, woman, child, and baby is covered in the blood of Jesus Christ. The only difference between the elect and the non-elect is that the elect have come to the full knowledge of the Truth; whereas, the non-elect still remain in ignorance of it. Just because someone does not know Jesus Christ died and payed the ransom for them in no way negates that the ransom has been payed; It will, however, determine how they live their lives.

OMT: Jesus Christ wasn't around for 4000+ years while babies were being born ___ innocent.

But the Law was... meaning we are born ignorant of the law but under it nonetheless. God is completely just in the condemnation of men at birth. Do I believe that God will send babies to hell? Absolutely not, I believe that God is love and will always do the right thing (see Genesis 18:25).

The passage I gave above brings up something that I think is important about condemnation. If you look at the definition of the word translated as "condemnation" or "condemned" you will find that it is talking about judgement. Even the use of the word in English testifies to that of judgment. If I were a "condemned criminal" I am simply a criminal who has had a judicial judgment passed upon me. Furthermore, judgment in the Bible is never a bad thing, for it is never an end, but a means by which a committed crime might be corrected. We often see condemnation and judgment as bad things; but, in all reality, they are the things that God uses to correct and make us learn from our selfish actions.

Let me put it this way. Through Adam the judgment of death was passed upon all men: however, through Christ the justification of life was passed upon all men... In other words; death is the condemnation/Judgment that God uses to bring men back into life through His grace, mercy, and love in Jesus Christ.

 

[Cross Reference]

I was actually going to bring up these verses. The problem with using these verses as proof text for an age of accountability is that these verses actually disprove it.

I don't use them to determine anything aside from what they state. I have repeatedly emphasized that. Babies have NO knowledge and God determines accountability. That should end this discussion.

David never said he was born in sin but conceived in it. The words of David are vey weighty! David was a man after God's own heart. Jesus will one day sit on his throne. Pay attention to what he says __as a "plumbline"!

 

[Ardima]

I don't use them to determine anything aside from what they state. I have repeatedly emphasized that. Babies have NO knowledge and God determines accountability. That should end this discussion.

Then by all means close the thread if you no longer widh to discuss the OP.

David never said he was born in sin but conceived in it. The words of David are vey weighty! David was a man after God's own heart. Jesus will one day sit on his throne. Pay attention to what he says __as a "plumbline"!

Once a being is conceived it then follows that he is born... I have explained that I do not beleive that God will send an infant to hell though you cannot deny that He would be just in doing so if He so chose. The law has been given since Adam and we are therefore still born under the law. The law cares not about circumstances, but God is love. Christ has already finnished and secured the redemption of all men through him.

 

[Cross Reference]

Then by all means close the thread if you no longer widh to discuss the OP.

Another distortion. When does it end with you?

Once a being is conceived it then follows that he is born... I have explained that I do not beleive that God will send an infant to hell though you cannot deny that He would be just in doing so if He so chose. The law has been given since Adam and we are therefore still born under the law. The law cares not about circumstances, but God is love. Christ has already finnished and secured the redemption of all men through him.

Wrong thinking, wrong conclusion and because you are building on a crooked foundation, everything after that is also, crooked.

 

[Ardima]

Wrong thinking, wrong conclusion and because you are building on a crooked foundation, everything after that is also, crooked.

The fondation I build on is "in Adam all; in Christ all."

Thats a pretty strait foundation.

 

[Cross Reference]

The fondation I build on is "in Adam all; in Christ all."

Thats a pretty strait foundation.

Not hardly straight or level when you can't seem to understand to address what I have posited for you think on, i.e., Holy Spirit gift you believe you have.

 

[Ardima]

Not hardly straight or level when you can't seem to understand to address what I have posited for you think on, i.e., Holy Spirit gift you believe you have.

The gift of the Holy Spirit is what has sealed me until the time of redemption of the purchased possession.Why do you have such a hard time when it comes to the Holy Spirit? Have you never felt Him lead you or hear Him speak to you? If not, I would question my position in Christ if I were you.

 

[Cross Reference]

The gift of the Holy Spirit is what has sealed me until the time of redemption of the purchased possession.

That can only be the Pentecostal gift. Do you understand that you might avoid being presumptuous?

Why do you have such a hard time when it comes to the Holy Spirit?

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that I don't?

Have you never felt Him lead you or hear Him speak to you? If not, I would question my position in Christ if I were you.

And I would suggest you pay better attention to what voice it is that speaks to you that you might learn to discern between "Light" and 'light'.

FWIW, Righteousness is a choice. Innocence is not a choice. Babies are incapable of choosing until they come to the knowledge of right and wrong and then God will judge with His righteous judgment in the matters of their choosing until it can be said of them that they are without excuse.