Since none of us question whether babies and children go to heaven when they die why do we say we are "born" sinners.

I don't think we are born sinners. We are born with a sin nature that we inherited from Adam. But we did not inherit his sin.

The Bible does not specifically say what happens to babies when they die.

There is one text that speaks about babies being restored to their mothers after the second coming, but I am at work and can't find it. I will look at home. I do belive children who die before the age of accountability will be in the kingdom...

The early (Mennonite) Anabaptists answered this as follows... in response to the RC teaching that (infant) water baptism took away original sin and the Reformed teaching that baptism placed one into the church (outside of which there is no salvation) 1 Cor. 12:13.

1. The Anabaptists taught that when Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden they did so with the promise of Redeemer (Gen. 3) and believing this promise they had eternal life. Further, they said that every baby born into the world is born with this same promise.

2. Coupled with this, they taught that man or child will never go lost for original sin and one cannot sin unless they are aware of what sin is. Till a child comes to understand sin he/she is not responsible. When sin is understood, that is when repentance and faith should take hold in ones life.

3. Everyone is born with the tendency to sin (original sin) and all ultimately sin and come short of the righteousness and glory of God. This sin, as I understand it, remains with us till we will receive new bodies at the resurrection.

After the dramatic experiences of life in the Garden and in the wold, I have no doubt that Adam and Eve "believed". They never forgot God. Could anyone forget after walking and talking with God?

2. Coupled with this, [they taught that man or child will never go lost for original sin and one cannot sin unless they are aware of what sin is.] Till a child comes to understand sin he/she is not responsible. When sin is understood, that is when repentance and faith should take hold in ones life.
(my parenthises)

Hank, if this is the case, then why not leave the Africans(or whoever)in their ignorant state? Why the need to go evangelize? If they are not aware of what sin is then they would be saved anyway.

[I know you are quoting the Anabaptists so this is not directed to you personally, unless in fact you agree with the statement.]

Good point GM. Here's another one. Lets suppose the thirteen year-old child is innocent and heading for haven at 2:17 pm on Monday, but at 2:18, becomes culpable and heading for hell. I mean, at some point in time, doesn't switching from heaven to hell have to be reduced to a micro-second's time? It is by these perplexing conundrums and thought experiments that we realize that we have missed the boat somewhere, somehow.

All of us come to scripture with a certain background understanding... and often we answer a specific issue. My response actually came from "Anabaptist thought" as they addressed infant baptism promoted by others. That understanding/thought addressed the question Mark originally presented.

Now, my response to GM ( from my understanding ) is that all mankind is without excuse before God whether they hear the gospel or not. Romans 1:20 tells us that God reveals Himself to man through creation/nature so that he is without excuse; Rom. 2:11-16 tells us God reveals Himself to man through conscience; and finally Rom. 3:2 through the Word. God has made all aware of Him enough to make all responsible... in one way or other.

GM; the point here is not wether we preach or not... of course the gospel is to be preached to all the world but that is another subject.

If there is a Bible difficulty to address, I believe Scott will find it. Christianity needs to have these questions asked and we need to think of the answers. I do not have all the answers. But above everything, I know that God is just, is fair & equitable, is righteous and that He loves His creation.

BTW, I view salvation not necessarily as a split second "thing" but as something we view to finally secure in the end. God is far more merciful then any here really understand. And I believe we likely all agree that the ( crying ) prostitute walking home from work with money to feed her children could well be be a lot closer to God then the man/woman sitting in a comfortably padded pew in church.

VirSis, you are a woman with understanding. Bless you.

> at some point in time, doesn't switching from heaven to hell have to be reduced to a micro-second's time?< <br>

Scott, this question has bothered me ever since I was a child. At what point are we going to heaven or hell? We have no way of knowing that, do we? When a person comes to the age of accountability and he realizes he is lost but a day before he gives his heart to God and he is killed, where is his eternal destiny?

Gm , no problem. Adapt the intelects idea, there is no hell, or, a good God won't send
anyone to hell. Nobody goes to hell, see, its so easy.
How quickly do you get heaven? Ask the thief on the cross,,,, it was that quick.
But, you do have to accept Jesus as you personel Saviour as did the thief, this seems
to be a problem for many of you.

Good point GM. Here's another one. Lets suppose the thirteen year-old child is innocent and heading for haven at 2:17 pm on Monday, but at 2:18, becomes culpable and heading for hell. I mean, at some point in time, doesn't switching from heaven to hell have to be reduced to a micro-second's time? It is by these perplexing conundrums and thought experiments that we realize that we have missed the boat somewhere, somehow

God's a pretty smart guy Scott, I think He can figure it out. He even knows where 'haven' is.

Somewhat tangential, but...

>>When a person comes to the age of accountability...< <br>

From where in scripture does this concept get its backing? The term is certainly not in scripture. Is the concept even scriptural?

Going on from there, is the AOA something that is a social construct in certain cultures/religious groups? If a kid is not raised to believe that around a certain age (10+ or whatever) s/he is supposed to 'feel lost' and 'get converted' would this happen on its own, internally?

How much of all of this is just a product of the sense of guilt placed on young children in these cultures, thereby messing around with their young psyches in an attempt to control, domesticate, and neuter them, psychologically speaking?

Steve
They've been told a certain version of the "truth" from a young age, and just accept whatever their told, regardless of contrary facts put directly to them.

>>When a person comes to the age of accountability...< <br>
From where in scripture does this concept get its backing? The term is certainly not in scripture.


Steven, that true, the term 'age of accountability' is not in the scriptures per se, but the concept is scriptural.

The term is not only 'Holdeman inspired'. See what Wikipedia has to say:

Age of accountability

This is the age at which a child is old enough to understand the moral consequences of his or her actions and can be held accountable for sins. It is also called the 'age of reason.' Though it does not correspond to a particular age for every person, due to differences in personal and psychological maturation, it is sometimes set down arbitrarily as 12 or, in the Roman Catholic Church, 7; the latter convention gave rise to the English common-law presumption that no child under the age of seven could possess the mens rea necessary for commission of a felony. Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe that the resurrected Jesus Christ revealed to Joseph Smith, Jr. that children are accountable at the age of 8 and should be baptized at that age.[1]

The concept of the age of accountability is not based upon any direct teaching from the Bible, but stems from individual church traditions. A child who has passed the age of accountability is said to know the difference between right and wrong and to be capable of obeying the moral laws of God. Some Christian traditions believe that the age of accountability is the end of a period of early grace (prevenient grace, in Wesleyan traditions) which covers over the sins of those not capable of knowing the moral consequences of their actions (persons who, due to developmental disability, mental or emotional development, will never reach a sufficient level of abstract reason, are covered by this grace for life and are sometimes known as 'the innocents'). In Christian traditions which practice Believer's Baptism (baptism by voluntary decision, as opposed to baptism in early infancy), the ritual can be carried out after the age of accountability has arrived. Some traditions withhold the rite of Holy Communion from those not yet at the age of accountability, on the grounds that children do not understand what the sacrament means. Full membership in the Church, if not bestowed at birth, often must wait until the age of accountability and frequently is granted only after a period of preparation known as catechesis.

This is a very interesting read, from a Holdeman perspective, and also church members being in a regenerate/unregenerate state and church discipline for the unregenerate.


http://www.founders.org/library/elliff1.html

When a child hears the Saviors voice and recognizes who it is, what it means and what the consequences are for their decision, no matter what they decide, is when they become accountable. That can be in stages. Only the person involved will know when that is. The spirit will call him, not man. Thank God that us mere humans can't say. calledoutPTL

I believe just as Christ's sacrifice coveres the unintential sins of all Christians, so His sacrifice covers the sins of children when they are yet in innocency.

If Jesus had not taken our fleshly situation upon Himself and fully overcame it and ressurrected from it, and thereby made a way so we can do the same, even innocent children who die, could not be delivered from the body of death they were born with, into a glorified body after death. Jesus really was the firstfruit of the ressurection from the death that came upon all through Adam. Any Spirit that denies that Christ came in the flesh is the spirit of the antichrist.

May God through Christ have mercy on us.

GM, that was definitely an interesting read. I think if we dissected it a little here, it would make for some interesting discussion. But then, I don't have much time for a lot of input myself...

GM, that was definitely an interesting read. I think if we dissected it a little here, it would make for some interesting discussion. But then, I don't have much time for a lot of input myself...

Yeah TR, tell me what you think about it. What I liked about the guy is that he is brutally honest. He definitely done his homework with his statistics and percentages.

Paris, I was not judging the man at all. In fact, quite the opposite. I was(to myself) praising him for looking at their situation as it really is and trying to do something about it. What I meant by looking at it from a holdeman perspective was that if the holdemans would be that honest then we might get somewhere with all the H problems. These two paragraphs at the end of the article summarizes it all;



2. We should establish a study group to explore our presently deplorable situation and to track its history. This group should also seek to re-examine the biblical mandate to have a regenerate church. Then this study group should report back with a strategy to help us out of the dilemma. They should be painfully honest. I am hopeful that individual churches will act without this prompting, but this would be an added stimulus to getting us to our fighting weight as a denomination. Some church leaders will not act without this sort of backing since independent action would be a departure from the status quo.

Our only alternative is to carry on in the old waythe way that produces 70-90% fallout. By continuing on as we are, we will gradually blur, and eventually obscure altogether, any distinction between the professing and the authentic Christian. In the end, we will look like every other mainline, liberal denomination. We are only one-third to one-tenth alive now. If we want to avoid complete deadness, we must take dramatic measures immediately. Like cotton candy, our apparent size does not add up to much. < <br>

Those statements should be a harbinger of what the H should be doing. Show me an H minister that is that honest. I don't think you can find one.

I replied on TR thread about 'regeneration'

Tell me over there, why anyone would judge a whole church? and not just themselves?

You have to stay focused on yourself.

Paris,

Why does this (CGCM) site exist? What gives this site it's wheels? What goes on here about every day? Are people refusing to judge an entire church? Or are they mostly focusing on themselves?

I see both, on this forum.

 People who are now in charge of themselves and people who are here to learn more about how a church should look to the world.

 

why anyone would judge a whole church?< <br>

Paris, the man is judging his own church, trying to find some answers to their problems. I did not post the article with the intent of judging them.


If a judge is judging a court case, he has to look at all the evidence and come to a decision. If the judge is not allowed to come to a conclusion, then he has no business being a judge. If there were no judges in the secular world then there would be total chaos. So maybe their church needs an honest judge to put a judgment on the people in order for them to be a viable spiritual organization because apparently it is not. So it is with denominations.

I hereby withdraw my deliberations in said discussion. Case Closed.

GM don't back out because of me. Say what you need to say.

I never get hierarchy anyway. It may be my biggest failure.