• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

a question i have about christian beliefs

TheGreaterGame

Active Member
linwood said:
Please explain how a newborn infant has personally "sinned".
Its the idea of the doctrine of original sin . . . the idea that says because of Adams fall (as our federal head) then all have sinned making it impossible for anyone not to sin.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
TheGreaterGame said:
Then we have to to reinterpret scripture from "ALL HAVE SINNED" to "ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE REACHED THE AGE OF ACCONTABILITY HAVE SINNED" . . . that's conveinent to say the least
Yes, we have to interpret it in such a way that it makes sense. It is impossible for a person to sin before he is capable of making a decision based on a knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. When I asked you (four times, if I'm not mistaken) what a newborn baby could possibly have done to sin, you continued to flat out ignore the question. Then finally you acknowledged that the baby's sin was being born. Being born, of course, was nothing the baby had any control over. But that doesn't seem to make any difference to you.

. . . also it makes the atoning work of Christ a mockery. :eek:
I'd say it's far more of a mockery of Christ's Atonement to say that He didn't atone for Adam's sin in the first place and that millions of babies are born every year being held accountable for the sin Christ's sacrifice apparently missed covering.
 

TheGreaterGame

Active Member
Katzpur said:
Yes, we have to interpret it in such a way that it makes sense. It is impossible for a person to sin before he is capable of making a decision based on a knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. When I asked you (four times, if I'm not mistaken) what a newborn baby could possibly have done to sin, you continued to flat out ignore the question. Then finally you acknowledged that the baby's sin was being born. Being born, of course, was nothing the baby had any control over. But that doesn't seem to make any difference to you.

I'd say it's far more of a mockery of Christ's Atonement to say that He didn't atone for Adam's sin in the first place and that millions of babies are born every year being held accountable for the sin Christ's sacrifice apparently missed covering.
1. Herein lies the difference between you and I: I let scripture speak for itself and you twist it to mean what you want it to mean.

2. All are guilty . . . but you don't seem to think so. Apparently people are good enough to be let into the presence of God. Forget about what Jesus said about being "born again" because you seem to think that the first time was good enough . . . well Jesus doesn't think so. Babies need the blood of Christ just like every other sinner and the only way that can be recieved is by faith.
 

Abram

Abraham
Therefore, just as through one man entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned... For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even through the obedience of the one the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:12-19

Behold, I was brought fourth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalms 51:5

The baby thing is impossible for anyone to answer but God. Maybe they are born with belief?
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
You folks paint such a rosey picture of reality.

I will remember your enlightened words, TheGreaterGame, the next time I see a smiling baby. I will take your hint and understand I am looking at a vile, evil, abomination and not a sweetly smiling infant.

How silly I never understood before.
 

TheGreaterGame

Active Member
YmirGF said:
You folks paint such a rosey picture of reality.

I will remember your enlightened words, TheGreaterGame, the next time I see a smiling baby. I will take your hint and understand I am looking at a vile, evil, abomination and not a sweetly smiling infant.

How silly I never understood before.
I'm glad I could help you understand the bible a little better . . . your welcome!
 

Smoke

Done here.
TheGreaterGame said:
Again, scripture sheds light on scripture . . . and Hebrew 4:13 says that Christ was tempted like us . . . yet without sin . . . Christ was sinless and if not . . . there is no savior.
If it's impossible for humans not to sin, and all humans are guilty of sin by definition, and Christ is human, then it is impossible for Christ not to sin, and Christ is guilty of sin.

If Christ is sinless, then either (1) Paul's teaching on the subject is in error or (2) you have, along with St. Augustine, wrongly understood Paul's teaching.
 

Smoke

Done here.
TheGreaterGame said:
Its the idea of the doctrine of original sin . . . the idea that says because of Adams fall (as our federal head) then all have sinned making it impossible for anyone not to sin.
I think everybody understands what you're saying; we just disagree with it -- as do the Orthodox Christians of the East along with many Protestants. The doctrine of inherited guilt is not consistent with reason or with the doctrine of the Incarnation. And it should go without saying that the expression "federal head", applied here to the mythical person of Adam, is not scriptural.
 

TheGreaterGame

Active Member
MidnightBlue said:
I think everybody understands what you're saying; we just disagree with it -- as do the Orthodox Christians of the East along with many Protestants. The doctrine of inherited guilt is not consistent with reason or with the doctrine of the Incarnation. And it should go without saying that the expression "federal head", applied here to the mythical person of Adam, is not scriptural.
We are dealing with Christian beliefs aren't we?

If yes, then the bible is our guide. Paul is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and so is the writer of Hebrews . . . and Christ is without sin . . . you can deny this if you choose so . . . but this is way out of bounds with Evangelical Christianity.

If no, then who cares.
 

Smoke

Done here.
TheGreaterGame said:
We are dealing with Christian beliefs aren't we?

If yes, then the bible is our guide. Paul is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and so is the writer of Hebrews . . . and Christ is without sin . . . you can deny this if you choose so . . . but this is way out of bounds with Evangelical Christianity.
We are dealing with Christian beliefs, but Evangelical beliefs aren't the only Christian beliefs, or the best ones. If Paul is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and Christ is without sin, it follows that Evangelicals have not correctly understood Paul's writings when they assert that all humans are by definition guilty of sin.
 

TheGreaterGame

Active Member
MidnightBlue said:
We are dealing with Christian beliefs, but Evangelical beliefs aren't the only Christian beliefs, or the best ones. If Paul is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and Christ is without sin, it follows that Evangelicals have not correctly understood Paul's writings when they assert that all humans are by definition guilty of sin.
Do you understand that you are side stepping Hebrews 4:13 . . . and we have to keep defining Christianity to get to the main priciple of what Jesus would have us do . . . which is love God with all our heart, strength, and mind and love our neigbor as ourselves. If you don't love your neigbor you don't love God . . . and if you don't love God there is no way you will ever love your neigbor. Deal with Hebrews 4:13 . . . that is if you belive the bible.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
TheGreaterGame,

Is there a difference to you between experiencing the effects of Adam's transgressions (which would be life and death) and actually being punished for them (which would be ending up in Hell)?

I believe that everyone will feel the effects of the choice that Adam and Eve made, but that life is not a punishment - it is an opportunity.
 

TheGreaterGame

Active Member
jonny said:
TheGreaterGame,

Is there a difference to you between experiencing the effects of Adam's transgressions (which would be life and death) and actually being punished for them (which would be ending up in Hell)?

I believe that everyone will feel the effects of the choice that Adam and Eve made, but that life is not a punishment - it is an opportunity.
I think they are one in the same, because of the exegesis of Rom 3:23, 5:12, 6:23. Scripture is my guide, no other. Adam's fall put all of us on an equal and fallen playing field . . . now it is soley up to the grace of God to save us . . . not any good that comes from ourselves.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
TheGreaterGame said:
1. Herein lies the difference between you and I: I let scripture speak for itself and you twist it to mean what you want it to mean.
I interpret certain scriptures differently than you do, GG. It's not very "Christian" to accuse me of "twisting" them, do you think? Judging from the Catholic and Orthodox input on this subject, there are an awful lot of other Christians who understand them pretty much the same way I do. You are entitled to think you interpretation is correct, but please don't make unfounded accusations about the rest of us.

2. All are guilty . . . but you don't seem to think so.
GG, I have a great idea! Why don't you stick to telling me what you believe and let me tell you what I believe. I believe that who are capable of being guilty are guilty.

Apparently people are good enough to be let into the presence of God.
Let me just ask you one thing. If you were to have a child and that child died within a few hours after it was born, what do you sincerely believe would happen to it?

Forget about what Jesus said about being "born again" because you seem to think that the first time was good enough
There you go again, telling me what I think. What makes you so sure I haven't been born again? Did God give you some special insight into my heart?

. . . well Jesus doesn't think so. Babies need the blood of Christ just like every other sinner and the only way that can be recieved is by faith.
On the contrary. Jesus knew that babies aren't sinners. He never said that it's a sin to be born, either, to the best of my knowledge.

Here's what He actually did say:

Matt.18:3 ...Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:14 ...Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:14 ...Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:16 ...Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Now, perhaps you could provide me with a few verses (besides the one you keep repeating) that explain your position.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Katzpur said:
Let me just ask you one thing. (And a straight yes or no answer will do just fine.) If you were to have a child and that child died within a few hours after it was born, what do you sincerely believe would happen to it?
Katzpur, that's not even a yes/no question! :D
 

TheGreaterGame

Active Member
I interpret certain scriptures differently than you do, GG. It's not very "Christian" to accuse me of "twisting" them, do you think? Judging from the Catholic and Orthodox input on this subject, there are an awful lot of other Christians who understand them pretty much the same way I do. You are entitled to think you interpretation is correct, but please don't make unfounded accusations about the rest of us.
If my child were to die in infancy I can only lean a few things, which is that God is right and just. Now if God were to send a baby to hell it wouldn't make him any less good or just, because all are guilty and all have earned hell, but I think that God (and I am merely speculating) that God would allow the child to grow and come to faith in Christ in a different realm . . . but I am only speculating . . . the only way that a person goes to heaven is through faith in Jesus. However, I don't belive this is purgatory and nor do I belive that this spirit prison . . . rather, I think this is a place in which children can grow and come to faith in Jesus. But this could be wrong . . . they may all go to hell and then again they may all go to heaven, but scripture is clear all have sinned and there has to be payment for sin. I realize this is sensative subject . . . so I want to be careful and gentle and consistent . . . scripture doesn't really give a clear teaching other then all of us need Jesus because we all have sinned.

The passages of scripture you referenced have nothing to do with infant salvation . . . so look at the context and tell me what its talking about . . . but the passages are not dealing with salvation . . . I don't need to deal with any more texts then the ones I have mentioned . . . Rom 3:10-11, etc, etc . . . you can't get around them so deal with it.

All I know is that our first birth wasn't good enough . . . that's why he said you need to be born again.

I wasn't talking about "the rest of us" I was talking about you. Secondly, to deny original sin from my perspective is to deny a basic doctrine that is fundamental to Christianity. I belive your interpretation is faulty.
 

fromthe heart

Well-Known Member
TheGreaterGame said:
I'm glad I could help you understand the bible a little better . . . your welcome!
Sarcasim doesn't really suit you...if anyone is to learn anything I feel you must not retaliate with such. I understand how you feel on the scriptures and I live only by the scriptures of God's Holy Word which is our TRUTH...with God being a God of love we must love those we don't like more than we'd love those we do...this is what Jesus wanted us to learn...We ARE all born unto sin...but I really don't believe that a baby will burn in Hell if it dies while below the age of accountability...which I believe to be the day they can reccognize sin to be sin...You have to KNOW sin is sin to be guilty of it. This is part of the reason children should be brought up learning why there is life to begin with.:)
 

Abram

Abraham
Katzpur said:
Now, perhaps you could provide me with a few verses (besides the one you keep repeating) that explain your position.
The baby thing again. I think you should start a new thread "do babies go to hell." no one has has the right answer.

But if you want a age the Talmud from ancient times designated age thirteen for boys "Bar Mitzvah" and twelve for girls "Bat Mizvah". This was the time when Jewish boys and girls became responsible for themselves and were to observe all the rituals, feasts, etc., incumbent upon them as members of the Jewish community. It was also the time when the boys were allowed (called) to read the Torah as full members of the worshipping community.

Let God figure this one out. Maybe were born with belief? It's God, why not?
 
Top