Children are innocent, not guilty of any sin

[civic]

Its appalling to condemn innocent children- Even the calvinst Gill agree's from Jer 2:34- they are INNOCENT not guilty of sin,

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents,.... Either of the innocent infants of poor persons, who were sacrificed to Moloch; or of the poor prophets of the Lord, whom they slew,

and here from Jeremiah

Jeremiah 19:2 and go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom at the entry of the Potsherd Gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell you…4 Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with THE BLOOD OF INNOCENTS…6 therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.

God judged them by having the Babylonians doing to them what they did to their children. The Jews Slaughtering their innocent children and God had them slaughtered by the Babylonians.

Psalm 106:34 They (the Israelites) did not destroy the peoples (the Canaanites), as the Lord commanded them, 35 but they mixed with the nations and learned to do as they did. 36 They served their idols, which became a snare to them. 37 They SACRIFICED THEIR SONS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS TO THE DEMONS; 38 they poured out INNOCENT BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood.

conclusion: how many time does God/Jesus have to say children are INNOCENT not guilty before you will believe ?

Jesus affirms the above in the N.T. Woe to those who cause any little ones to stumble.

And more scripture from Jesus

Matthew 18:2-5
And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven

Matthew 18:10
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 18:14
So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.

Matthew 19:13-14
Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

Mark 9:36-37
Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”

Mark 10:13-16
And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.

Luke 9:47-48
But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.”

Luke 18:15-17
And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

conclusion :There is no transmission of a fallen nature, a sin nature that originated with augustine. Lets see what God declares about sin.

Ezekiel 18:4
For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die

Ezekiel 18:20
“The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”

Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6
Yet he did not put the sons of the murderers to death, but acted according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded: "Fathers must not be put to death for their children, and children must not be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."

Jeremiah 31:30
Instead, each will die for his own iniquity. If anyone eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will be set on edge.

And we have the wisdom of Job below who knew had he died as a child he would be at peace with the Lord as an innocent and not condemned in hell as guilty as some falsely teach/believe. Job knew there was no torment and suffering if he had died as a child.

Job 3:11 “Why did I not die at birth, come out from the womb and expire?…13 For then I would have lain DOWN AND BEEN QUIET; I WOULD HAVE SLEPT; THEN I WOULD HAVE BEEN AT REST.

The Bible is in one accord on the innocence of children and that there is no guilt of sin.


hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

the history of the false doctrine of original sin and childrens guilt

Church history lesson for those who are willing to learn and be fact checked with their beliefs.

Augustine and Pelagius- the History of original sin.

Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin was born from his attempt to combat the heresy of Pelagianism. The controversy began in Rome when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed Augustine’s prayer: “Grant what you command, and command what you desire”. Pelagius was opposing the idea that the divine gift of grace was necessary to perform the will of God. Pelagius believed that if we are responsible for obeying the commandments of God, then we must all also have the ability to do so without divine aid. He went on to deny the doctrine of Ancestral Sin, arguing that the consequences of Adam’s sin are not passed on to the rest of mankind. Adam’s sin affected Adam alone, and thus infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall.

Augustine took a starkly different view of the Fall, arguing that mankind is utterly sinful and incapable of good. Augustine believed that the state of Original Sin leaves us in such a condition that we are unable to refrain from sin. The ‘image of God’ in man (i.e., free will) was destroyed by the Fall. As much as we may choose to do good, our evil impulses pervert our free will and compel us to do evil. Therefore we are totally dependent upon grace.

So far did Augustine take his grim view of the human condition, that he argued not only that the Original Sin effects all of Adam’s descendants, but that each person is guilty of the Original Sin from birth (Original Guilt). Infants are therefore guilty of sin and thus infants who die before baptism, in which (according to Augustine) the guilt of Original Sin is removed, are condemned to perdition and cannot be saved. As if that was not bad enough, Augustine went on to formulate the doctrine of Predestination, which affirms that God has foreordained who will be saved and who will not.

Augustine prevailed and Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome at the Council of Carthage in 418. It seemed that Pelagius’ views were more reprehensible to the Latin Church than the idea of predestination and babies burning in hell – views that the Latin Church was not only willing to tolerate, but even willing to champion as Orthodox doctrine!


St John Chrysostom

Between Augustine and Pelagius there appeared to be no middle-way in the West. A different view, however, was expressed in the East by Augustine’s contemporary, John Chrysostom. The dispute between Augustine and Pelagius had not reached the East, and so Chrysostom’s views were not so agitated by heated disputes and polemics. Were Chrysostom involved in the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, perhaps his teaching on Ancestral Sin would have prevailed over both Pelagius and Augustine alike, but considering that the sole concern of the Latin Church seemed to be the condemnation of Pelagianism, it is probably more likely that he would have been condemned as semi-pelagian.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/#_edn1 Whatever the case, Chrysostom’s views on the subject have never enjoyed the attention they deserve, and the heated nature of the dispute in the West meant that the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ as expounded by Augustine was regarded as the only safeguard against the heresy of Pelagianism.

Chrysostom, while claiming that all human beings are made in the image of God, believed that the Ancestral Sin brought corruptibility and death not only to Adam but to all his descendants, weakening his ability to grow into God’s likeness, but never destroying God’s image (free will). Chrysostom is a major voice within a consensus of Greek patristic writers who interpret the Fall as “an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality”.[ii] Chrysostom’s position is echoed, for example, by St Athanasius the Great and St Cyril of Alexandria, who claimed that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, though we inherit a corrupted nature; but our free will remains intact. This Greek patristic interpretation is founded upon Romans 5:12: “As sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men because all men have sinned”[iii]. John Meyendorff explains how the deficient Latin translation of the text may have contributed to such a stark difference in the Latin interpretation of the Ancestral Sin:

‘In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned”), and this translation was used in the West to justify the guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek’.[iv]

St Cyril of Alexandria explained the passage in this way:

“How did many become sinners because of Adam?… How could we, who were not yet born, all be condemned with him, even though God said, ‘Neither the fathers shall be put to death because of their children, nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sins shall be put to death’? (cf. Deut. 24:18) … we became sinners through Adam’s disobedience in such manner as this: he was created for incorruptibility and life, and the manner of existence he had in the garden of delight was proper to holiness. His whole mind was continually beholding God; his body was tranquil and calm with all base pleasures being still. For there was no tumult of alien disturbances in it. But because he fell under sin and slipped into corruptibility, pleasures and filthiness assaulted the nature of the flesh, and in our members was unveiled a savage law. Our nature, then, became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not by being co-transgressors with Adam,… but by being of his nature and falling under the law of sin… Human nature fell ill in Adam and subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in”.[v]


St John Cassian

The East paid little attention to Augustine, and this was largely due to language barriers. For the Eastern Christians, serious theologians wrote in Greek, and they paid little heed to Latin writers. What opposition did come from the East came from some Eastern Orthodox theologians who, for one reason or another, found themselves living in the West. Amongst the most prominent was St John Cassian. St John opposed Augustine on four major points:

1) There were clearly instances where people had come to God of their own volition, who, while called by Christ and aided by divine grace, chose to change their ways (e.g. Matthew, Paul, Zacchaeus). Therefore, it is not grace alone that saves us, but also man’s willingness to repent.

2) After the Fall, Adam and his descendants retained a knowledge of good, and an impulse, however weakened, to pursue good. Man was not, as Augustine claimed, utterly depraved and incapable of good after the Fall.

3) The ‘Image’ of God in man is sick, but not dead. The divine image is in need of healing, but this healing requires synergy (the co-operation of man’s will with divine grace).

4) God wishes all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so those who are not saved reject salvation against His will. Predestination should be understood as foreknowledge and not as foreordination.

The West condemned St John Cassian’s views as semi-pelagian, but for the Orthodox, Cassian is one of the foremost exponents of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.[vi] His views were supported also by Theodoret of Antioch:

“There is need of both our efforts and divine aid. The grace of the Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without grace our efforts can not collect the prize of virtue”.


The Ancestral Sin and Baptism


Augustine’s view of Original Sin was the reason also for his justification of infant baptism. Believing that babies are born guilty of sin, he argued that baptism was necessary for the babies’ salvation. He saw the innocence of infants purely in terms of their being physically too weak to commit sin, but equally guilty as adults of Adam’s sin.

The Greek Fathers, having a different view of the Fall and the Ancestral Sin, interpreted the purpose of infant baptism in another way, different in important respects from the familiar Augustinian and Reformed interpretations of the West. The Greek Fathers believed that newborn infants are innocents, wholly without sin. While infants inherit a human nature which, in its wholeness, is wounded by the Ancestral Sin, weakening the will and making each person prone to sin, they are innocent of sin nonetheless. In the fourth of his catechetical homilies on baptism, St John Chrysostom states, “We do baptise infants, although they are not guilty of any sins”. For the Greek Fathers, baptism, above all else, is an acceptance by the Church and entrance of the baptised person into the redeemed and sanctified Body of Christ, the beginning of a life spent in spiritual combat and instruction in holiness on the deepening journey to the Kingdom of God.

Considering the stark contrast between the Orthodox doctrine of the Ancestral Sin and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin, and the different understanding of baptism that these doctrines lead to, is it not surprising that some Orthodox speak of baptism in Augustinian terms – of the forgiveness of Original Sin – especially considering that the Orthodox service for baptism makes not a single reference to it? The closest we come to mention of the Ancestral Sin (Πρωπατρορικό ἁμάρτημα) in baptism is in the first prayer of the Service for the Making of a Catechumen (which was originally completely separate from the service of Baptism): “Remove far from him/her that ancient error” (παλαιά πλάνη). If one of the main purposes of baptism was the forgiveness of Original Sin, surely it would be worth mentioning in the baptism service! But the idea of ‘Original Sin’ being “forgiven” is nowhere to be found in the Greek Fathers or in the hymns and prayers of the Orthodox Church. For it is an idea which is alien to Greek Patristic thought. The Ancestral Sin is a condition, primarily of mortality and corruptibility, which needs healing, an inherited ‘illness’ which means that free will – or ‘the Image of God’ as the Greek Fathers preferred to put it – though kept intact, is in need of divine grace in order to progress along the path to attaining God’s ‘likeness’, the path to theosis or ‘deification’.


Bearing in mind the significant differences between the Orthodox and the Augustinian views of ‘Original Sin’, it surprises me that some Orthodox Christians are so quick to employ the term, claiming that the Orthodox Church holds to the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’, and qualifying this simply by saying that it does not embrace the doctrine of ‘Original Guilt’. I do not think that this is adequate for expounding the Orthodox position on Original Sin. Although Augustine was recognised as a saint by the Orthodox Church,[vii] it has never accepted his teaching on Original Sin. If what I have written above is correct, then the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is wholly un-Orthodox, and it led, I believe, to a whole series of heresies in the Latin Church, such as Predestination, Purgatory, Limbo and the Immaculate Conception. We Orthodox would do well to distance ourselves from the well-known Augustinian position on Original Sin by employing a less familiar term: Ancestral Sin. It is not merely a case of semantics. For an erroneous understanding of this doctrine has serious repercussions for our understanding of sin and the Fall, for grace and free will, for baptism, the human condition and man’s deification. In short, how we understand the Ancestral Sin has direct implications for our whole soteriology – our understanding of the salvation of man and the world.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

1 John 3:4 " Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness."

Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

Matthew 18:3, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 19:14, "But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

If children are born sinners as TD and original sin teaches then Jesus teaches that to be His disciples we must be corrupt like the little children which is an oxymoron.

The teaching above by Jesus, Ezekiel and John confirms I’m correct and original sin is not. One becomes a sinner when they sin and become guilty of that sin not before. Babies are born innocent, not guilty. There is no DNA gene making one a sinner that is folklore.


The errors of the Gnostics were continually rejected by the Early Church, but the Gnostics continued to try to penetrate the Church with their views. The Gnostics even wrote their own gospels, known as the Gnostic Gospels today, where they stole credible names like Mary and Thomas to try to give validity to their teachings.

While many of the attempts of the Gnostics to infiltrate the Church failed, and many of their views are widely rejected today, it seems that their particular view of human nature, free will, and the nature of sin has found wide acceptance in the Church today.

On Free will

Regarding the term “free will,” John Calvin admitted “As to the Fathers, (if their authority weighs with us,) they have the term constantly in their mouths…”[31]He said, “The Greek fathers above others” have taught “the power of the human will”[32] and “they have not been ashamed to make use of a much more arrogant expression calling man ‘free agent or self-manager,’ just as if man had a power to govern himself…”[33] He also said, “The Latin fathers have always retained the word ‘free will’ as if man stood yet upright.”[34] It is a fact that cannot be denied even by those who most ardently oppose the doctrine of free will, that the doctrine of free will and not that of inability was held by all of the Early Church.

Walter Arthur Copinger said, “All the Fathers are unanimous on the freedom of the human will…”[35]Lyman Beecher said, “the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church…”[36] And Dr Wiggers said, “All the fathers…agreed with the Pelagians, in attributing freedom of will to man in his present state.”[37] This is a very important point because whenever a person today holds to the belief that all men have the natural ability to obey God or not to obey Him, or that man’s nature still retains the faculty of free will and can choose between these two alternatives and possibilities, he is almost immediately accused of being a heretical “Pelagian” by the Calvinists. This accusation is being unfair to the position of free will since all of the Early Church Fathers held to free will long before Pelagius even existed.

On Original sin

Harry Conn said, “Augustine, after studying the philosophy of Manes, the Persian philosopher, brought into the church from Manichaeism the doctrine of original sin.”[51]

The corruption of our nature, or the loss of our free will, Augustine credited to the original sin of Adam. Augustine said that the “free choice of the will was present in that man who was the first to be formed… But after he sinned by that free will, we who have descended from his progeny have been plunged into necessity.”[52] “By Adam’s transgression, the freedom of’ the human will has been completely lost.”[53] “By the greatness of the first sin, we have lost the freewill to love God.” And finally he said, “by subverting the rectitude in which he was created, he is followed with the punishment of not being able to do right” and “the freedom to abstain from sin has been lost as a punishment of sin.”[54]

Consider the following facts:

• All of the Early Christians, before Augustine, believed in man’s free will and denied man’s natural inability.
• The Gnostics in the days of the Early Church believed in man’s natural inability and denied man’s free will.
• Augustine was a Gnostic for many years, in the Manichaeism sect, and converted to the Church out of Gnosticism.
• After joining the Church and being appointed a Bishop, Augustine began to deny the free will of man and to affirm the natural inability of man
• The Church, under Augustine’s influence, began to believe in the natural inability of man, which it never before held to, but which it formerly would refute.

The reason that John Calvin rejected all ancient theologians and dismissed all of their writings on this matter, except for Augustine, is because all ancient theologians affirmed the freedom of the will in their writings, except for Augustine. Gregory Boyd said, “This in part explains why Calvin cannot cite ante-Nicene fathers against his libertarian opponents…. Hence, when Calvin debates Pighuis on the freedom of the will, he cites Augustine abundantly, but no early church fathers are cited.”[80] That is why George Pretyman said, “…the peculiar tenets of Calvinism are in direct opposition to the Doctrines maintained in the primitive Church of Christ…” This we have clearly seen, but he also said, “…there is a great similarity between the Calvinistic system and the earliest [Gnostic] heresies…”[81]

The Reformers sought to return the Church to early Christianity, but actually brought it back to early heresies, because it stopped short at Augustine. The Reformers did not go far back enough. Rather than returning the Church to early Christianity, the Reformation resurrected Augustinian and Gnostic doctrines. The Methodist Quarterly Review said, “At the Reformation Augustinianism received an emphatic re-enforcement among the Protestant Churches.”[82] The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics said, “…it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation. For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine… the Reformation came, seeing that it was, on its theological side, a revival of Augustinianism…”[83] The Reformation was to a great extent a resurrection or revival of Augustinian theology and a further departure and falling away from Early Christianity.

Gnosticism, Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism have much in common. Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism teach Gnostic views of human nature and free will but under a different name. It’s the same old Gnosticism in a new wrapper. Other doctrines also seem to have originated in Gnosticism, from Basilianism, Valentianism, Marcionism, and Manichaeism, such as the doctrines of easy believism, individual predestination, constitutional regeneration, a sinful nature or a sinful flesh, eternal security or once saved always saved, and others. But no Gnostic doctrine has spread so widely throughout the Church, with such great acceptance as the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God. https://crosstheology.wordpress.com/augustine-gnostic-heretic-and-corruptor-of-the-church/

hope this helps !!!

 

[atpollard]

Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents,.... Either of the innocent infants of poor persons, who were sacrificed to Moloch;

OK ...

Is a 4 year old really SINLESS?

• never lied? Leviticus 19:11 [ESV] "... you shall not lie to one another."
• never taken anything? Exodus 20:15 [ESV] "You shall not steal."
• never been angry at a sibling? Matthew 5:21-22 [ESV] "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire."
• never said "no" to a parent? Exodus 20:12 [ESV] "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."

Or had they merely never done anything for which they deserved to be burned alive to the demon Molech?
Were they really SINLESS, or merely INNOCENT?

If they were INNOCENT but not SINLESS, then you have erected a very large STRAWMAN, because nobody ever claimed children were the "spawn of satan", we just claim they are not "SINLESS" (like Pelagius did).

 

[civic]

OK ...

Is a 4 year old really SINLESS?

• never lied? Leviticus 19:11 [ESV] "... you shall not lie to one another."
• never taken anything? Exodus 20:15 [ESV] "You shall not steal."
• never been angry at a sibling? Matthew 5:21-22 [ESV] "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire."
• never said "no" to a parent? Exodus 20:12 [ESV] "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."

Or had they merely never done anything for which they deserved to be burned alive to the demon Molech?
Were they really SINLESS, or merely INNOCENT?

If they were INNOCENT but not SINLESS, then you have erected a very large STRAWMAN, because nobody ever claimed children were the "spawn of satan", we just claim they are not "SINLESS" (like Pelagius did).

innocent means not guilty- you have the innocent guilty of sin- guilt of sin equals death and seperation from God. I have proven the innocence of children from the old and new testaments.

you keep digging yourself deeper in the hole

 

[Cosmo]

At what age are children responsible for their sins?

Bible Answer:​

God never tells us at what age is a child responsible for his or her sins. Many teach that we are not responsible at a young age. But there are no passages in scripture which support this idea other than David’s comments about his dead child. In 2 Samuel 11:27 we discover that David’s new wife Bathsheba gave birth to a little baby boy. At some later time, God disciplined David by taking the life of the baby (2 Sam. 12:15-16). After the baby dies, King David says this about the child,

And he said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” (NASB) 2 Samuel 12:22-23

David says that he will see his child in heaven some day. This means that God did not hold the infant responsible for his/her sins. We are all born sinners. We sin because we are sinners.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me. (NASB) Ps 51:5

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men . . . (NASB) Rom. 5:12

Conclusion:​

By nature we are born sinners and so we deserve death. If David will see his child some day, this means that God did not hold the child responsible for his sins. How old was the child? We do not know, but he must have been in the first or early years of his life (2 Samuel 12:15-23).

Bible Q&A

 

[civic]

At what age are children responsible for their sins?

Bible Answer:​

God never tells us at what age is a child responsible for his or her sins. Many teach that we are not responsible at a young age. But there are no passages in scripture which support this idea other than David’s comments about his dead child. In 2 Samuel 11:27 we discover that David’s new wife Bathsheba gave birth to a little baby boy. At some later time, God disciplined David by taking the life of the baby (2 Sam. 12:15-16). After the baby dies, King David says this about the child,


David says that he will see his child in heaven some day. This means that God did not hold the infant responsible for his/her sins. We are all born sinners. We sin because we are sinners.

Conclusion:​

By nature we are born sinners and so we deserve death. If David will see his child some day, this means that God did not hold the child responsible for his sins. How old was the child? We do not know, but he must have been in the first or early years of his life (2 Samuel 12:15-23).

Bible Q&A

Psalm 51:5 is the parents being the sinners not the child in the womb.

 

[atpollard]

you keep digging yourself deeper in the hole

Your 4-year-old had NEVER:

• lied?
  • Leviticus 19:11 [ESV] "... you shall not lie to one another."
• taken anything?
  • Exodus 20:15 [ESV] "You shall not steal."
• been angry at a sibling?
  • Matthew 5:21-22 [ESV] "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire."
• said "no" to a parent?
  • Exodus 20:12 [ESV] "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."

... and [thus] was still sinless under the LAW?
I do not believe you.

 

[civic]

Your 4-year-old had NEVER:

• lied?
  • Leviticus 19:11 [ESV] "... you shall not lie to one another."
• taken anything?
  • Exodus 20:15 [ESV] "You shall not steal."
• been angry at a sibling?
  • Matthew 5:21-22 [ESV] "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire."
• said "no" to a parent?
  • Exodus 20:12 [ESV] "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."

... and [thus] was still sinless under the LAW?
I do not believe you.

Since when is an infant 4-5 years old.

Keep on digging that ditch deeper

 

[TedT]

Matthew 19:14, "But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Did they try to keep the children away because they were a bother or because they were deemed to be sinless without a need for a Saviour?
Berean Standard Bible
Luke 5:32I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

If they are sinless and die to go straight to heaven without any free will decision to do so by any means, then why are the vast majority left alive to suffer and die in their sinfulness with hell on the line? Why were we, me and thee, kept out of the 'go to heaven early' club, left to live to make our sinful choices and perhaps end in hell?

GOD wants everyone to be saved, 1 Timothy 2:4? Then just kill everyone early before their supposed age of majority!! If I can see that as a solution to the problem of growing older and perhaps going to hell, of course GOD can too!

This doctrine also would seem to contradict the verse that teaches us that death is paid for sinfulness and so is NOT just a fact of existence, a consequence of life!! This would mean that death proves sinfulness. As the wages for sin death cannot come to an innocent yet the supposed innocent die like flies at the bequest of GOD: Ezekiel 9:5-6, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Joshua 6:21, Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Psalm 137:8-9 etc, etc.

So imCo, infants are indeed sinful but not by Adam but by the only way anyone becomes a sinner, by their own free will to repudiate GOD or to rebel against HIS commands. They must have made this free will choice to be sinful in HIS eyes, before their conception, before they were sown, not created, into this world: Matt 13:36-39.

 

[Overjoyed]

There are indeed many tragedies that we endure in this life, and one of them is the death of an innocent. These innocents are babies and young children, those born with mental disabilities, and those who acquired a mental disability at a young age which keeps them from understanding the natural law that God placed in every person.

They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them]
Romans 2:15

Parents are not supposed to have to bury their children; it should be the other way around. The tragedy of a baby or toddler dying is all too real and frequent. Birth defects also happen through no fault of any specific person other than Adam, and those with some birth defects never reach a mental capability of understanding.

God gave us the means to know exactly why and how these innocents gain entry into heaven.

 

[atpollard]

Since when is an infant 4-5 years old.

Keep on digging that ditch deeper

from your OP:

Matthew 18:2-5
And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Since YOU insisted that JESUS called them SINLESS!

 

[TedT]

Birth defects also happen through no fault of any specific person other than Adam,

The theology of our Pre-Conception Existence (PCE) says we can blame no one but ourselves and our sinful desires for any and all suffering in our lives...not Adam, not GOD.

 

[GodsGrace]

Its appalling to condemn innocent children- Even the calvinst Gill agree's from Jer 2:34- they are INNOCENT not guilty of sin,

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents,.... Either of the innocent infants of poor persons, who were sacrificed to Moloch; or of the poor prophets of the Lord, whom they slew,

and here from Jeremiah

Jeremiah 19:2 and go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom at the entry of the Potsherd Gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell you…4 Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with THE BLOOD OF INNOCENTS…6 therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.

God judged them by having the Babylonians doing to them what they did to their children. The Jews Slaughtering their innocent children and God had them slaughtered by the Babylonians.

Psalm 106:34 They (the Israelites) did not destroy the peoples (the Canaanites), as the Lord commanded them, 35 but they mixed with the nations and learned to do as they did. 36 They served their idols, which became a snare to them. 37 They SACRIFICED THEIR SONS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS TO THE DEMONS; 38 they poured out INNOCENT BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood.

conclusion: how many time does God/Jesus have to say children are INNOCENT not guilty before you will believe ?

Jesus affirms the above in the N.T. Woe to those who cause any little ones to stumble.

And more scripture from Jesus

Matthew 18:2-5
And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven

Matthew 18:10
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 18:14
So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.

Matthew 19:13-14
Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

Mark 9:36-37
Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”

Mark 10:13-16
And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.

Luke 9:47-48
But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.”

Luke 18:15-17
And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

conclusion :There is no transmission of a fallen nature, a sin nature that originated with augustine. Lets see what God declares about sin.

Ezekiel 18:4
For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die

Ezekiel 18:20
“The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”

Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6
Yet he did not put the sons of the murderers to death, but acted according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded: "Fathers must not be put to death for their children, and children must not be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."

Jeremiah 31:30
Instead, each will die for his own iniquity. If anyone eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will be set on edge.

And we have the wisdom of Job below who knew had he died as a child he would be at peace with the Lord as an innocent and not condemned in hell as guilty as some falsely teach/believe. Job knew there was no torment and suffering if he had died as a child.

Job 3:11 “Why did I not die at birth, come out from the womb and expire?…13 For then I would have lain DOWN AND BEEN QUIET; I WOULD HAVE SLEPT; THEN I WOULD HAVE BEEN AT REST.

The Bible is in one accord on the innocence of children and that there is no guilt of sin.


hope this helps !!!

Civic
The above is absolutely correct....
Would just like to make a couple of comments:

1. I DO believe you're conflating the sin nature with personal guilt.
Man is born with the sin nature.
The sin nature is a weakness that makes man not be in right relationship with God due to the fall.
It's a STAIN on our soul...
NOT a sin.

Sin, as you've correctly stated, can only be committed by a person that understands what sin is.
A child does not understand sin.

When a child becomes of a certain age...whatever it may be for each child individually....the age of accountability....then they can sin.


2. Augustine made a mess of things.
The early church DID NOT believe that babies are born with personal sin.
Augustine changed this teaching in the 5th century because of his manichaen background.
He taught that all that are born are born with SIN on their soul....not just the STAIN of sin.

Original sin just meant the sin that ADAM committed...
the first sin ever.
It really still means this since no denomination believes babies are born with sin on their soul...
but some believe it means the actual sin on the soul of a baby....
No. This is not what it means....I think you give the incorrect meaning to original sin. (thanks to Augustine...)
It just means Adam's first sin.......mankind's first sin.

Babies are NOT born with any personal sin.
They are innocent until the age of accountability.

 

[GodsGrace]

OK ...

Is a 4 year old really SINLESS?

• never lied? Leviticus 19:11 [ESV] "... you shall not lie to one another."
• never taken anything? Exodus 20:15 [ESV] "You shall not steal."
• never been angry at a sibling? Matthew 5:21-22 [ESV] "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire."
• never said "no" to a parent? Exodus 20:12 [ESV] "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."

Or had they merely never done anything for which they deserved to be burned alive to the demon Molech?
Were they really SINLESS, or merely INNOCENT?

If they were INNOCENT but not SINLESS, then you have erected a very large STRAWMAN, because nobody ever claimed children were the "spawn of satan", we just claim they are not "SINLESS" (like Pelagius did).

Children are not born with sin because they cannot commit sin.
What sin has a baby committed?

What is necessary to commit sin?

 

[Overjoyed]

The theology of our Pre-Conception Existence (PCE) says we can blame no one but ourselves and our sinful desires for any and all suffering in our lives...not Adam, not GOD.

Throughout biblical history there seems to be a lack of addressing the questions of when, how, and why a person is declared guilty in the eyes of God in a simple yet formulaic way. This would comprise tracing the subject of infant death, guilt, or innocence throughout Scripture rather than simply finding a verse to back up a preconceived ideology.

The answers that are usually given lack a definitive quality to those who would quote seemingly opposed Scriptures. Basing answers on a singular idea or emotion without regard to the biblical questions that arise from these answers is unacceptable. The answer must stand the scrutiny of a Genesis to Revelation study.

What does the Bible say about the pre-existence of souls? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible say about the pre-existence of souls? Do human souls exist before a person is born into this world?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[GodsGrace]

Since when is an infant 4-5 years old.

Keep on digging that ditch deeper

The above is not for me, but:

A 4 or 5 year old has no concept of sin.
He has not reached the age of accountability.
Some 10 year olds do not know what sin is until they're taught.
I know this for sure because I've done the teaching....
besides knowing it theologically.

 

[GodsGrace]

from your OP:

Matthew 18:2-5
And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Since YOU insisted that JESUS called them SINLESS!

Oh my!
Do you think Jesus means that the child needs to humble himself??

No. Jesus means that the child is already humble....
humble because he knows not sinfulness...
humble because a child believes what he is taught...
humble because he looks to others to be led.

A child is humble....
just as we adults should be.

 

[civic]

Oh my!
Do you think Jesus means that the child needs to humble himself??

No. Jesus means that the child is already humble....
humble because he knows not sinfulness...
humble because a child believes what he is taught...
humble because he looks to others to be led.

A child is humble....

Amen but we know some think they are filthy rotten little despicable sinful devils

 

[GodsGrace]

Amen but we know some think they are filthy rotten little despicable sinful devils

That's pretty funny civic!

But it's actually quite sad.
I believe Dr. J. White believes children are born already with sin.
I remember thinking what would he feel/think if one of his grandchildren passed on? (God forbid).
It's just a horrendous teaching.

And the bible does not support this teaching.