A Witty Title.

Don't know if I have the right perspective here as I don't take myself for being Christian.

I don't believe children can be held accountable for "sin" so to speak until they reach an age where they understand it. I think God (or Jesus, one and the same aren't they?), as Christians like to point out, as being a merciful being, would take this into consideration when passing judgement. Just my thought on the topc.
 

It's really hard not to read other peoples comments when they're sitting right in from of you when you go to post.. :p

That said, I do agree with Jageral. If a child is too young, or a person too disbled to be able to understand Christianity, then a few points come to mind.

Can they have commited any sins? I know there is something about all humans being sinful, and being held responsible for orginal sin or soemthing, but I think that's just being a little unfair about it. If the person hasn't commited any sin in their own right...?

Also, and I can't remember where I get this bit from, but I think there was something about judgement and our own standards.. Isn't there?

If they haven't had the capacity for sin, and are held accountable by their own standards, I think they're pretty safe.
 

Hmm, tough question - my brief thoughts here, and these are not really fleshed out, but I've always thought that we are simply judged on what we do with what we know. As for those too isolated, I'm not sure that works I don't think there is a "deepest darkest africa" anymore - and to paraphrase Romans 1, creation testifies to God too. Just some preliminary thoughts.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Ahh, yes.

My understanding from the Bible's not a very popular one. There's a long standing 'All babies go to heaven' mentality that pervades the baptist church (because they have some strange ideas about the nature of deeds and thought). Simply put, by a strict reading of the Bible, all people are born sinful. They don't sin and become sinful, they sin because they ARE sinful. So, there was a time when babies that died were straight-out screwed. However, Jesus (and I believe this is in one of the gospels - I can call up my dad if you really want me to squirrel out the Sermon notes) explained that it is ultimately on the purity of the parents that the child is judged.

Those who don't have a chance to know? Strict reading of the Bible says rough biscuits.

Those too stupid? Same deal.

This is part of why the christian faith jars with me. It's far too much a 'Do this or be screwed' faith, and since for the first thousand years of its existance, it was only available to about 15% of the world, even with its built in "Go and tell everyone about this" clause, it's far too scorched earth for my tastes. Indeed, it doesn't feel very loving god to me.
 

Humans are all sinful, even from before birth, thats part of the curse.

I guess to soften that i always thought (though i dont think it is directly biblical) that God knows all the "what if" answers, and therefore knows whether or not the baby would have become a christian had they had the opportunity and therefore can judge fairly. Similar idea for those who havent heard but have responded to their in built knowledge of God (by very nature fulfilled the requirements of the law etc).
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

I think the doctrine of predestination can come into play here, that is, if God wants someone to be saved then they will be saved.
The Bible does not give us much of the mechanics of salvation that is not relevant to us, i.e. salvation of babies, those that are isolated, etc. This does not mean, however, that God does not have plans for these.
 

In case you were woundering the two deleted commetns are doubble posts.

Matt
 

Given the topic, I can really say only this: the bible does not say, therefore we cannot know but, instead, must trust that God will do what is right in accordance with His will. Romans 9:10b-16 - "when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, 'The older shall serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.' What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.' So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." (NKJV)

None of the arguments I have ever heard on this topic (regardless of the side they came down on) have been biblically sound, especially since they quote passages taken out of context and then stretch those passages beyond breaking point in order to "prove" what they have to say.

That said, here is what I've found. In Romans 5:12, Paul writes, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned..." (NKJV) Thus, we are all sinful from Adam and, therefore, from birth: "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come" (Romans 5:14, NKJV). We require acceptance of Christ's gift to gain salvation: "But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many." (Romans 5:15, NKJV) Thus, someone who is unable accept Christ's sacrifice, would appear to not be covered by His salvation.

On the other hand, there is also this: Luke 12:47-48. Verses 40-48 deal with the fact that we cannot know when Christ will come again, especially mentioning with those who disobey God's will in the meanwhile. In verses 47-48a, Christ states, "And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few." (NKJV). Seems that those who are genuinely ignorant of God and Christ will be treated more leniently than those who know of Him and reject Him.

Similarly, Hebrews 9:7. Hebrews 9 contrasts the approach to attonement for sin under the old covenant and the new covenant, indicating that the old system was an imperfect reflection of Christ's perfect sacrifice. Here the high priest's yearly sacrifice also covers sins committed by those ignorant of the law: "But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people's sins committed in ignorance..." (NKJV). It would follow, therefore, that Christ's sacrifice also covers such sins - "Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Hebrews 9:12-14, NKJV).
 

Now that I have read other people's posts, I'd like to add these.

Like Duncan, I would also refer to the natural world and its testimony to God (thanks, Dunc. I couldn't remember where in Romans it was.): "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Romans 1:20-21, NKJV). However, while this means that all people can have knowledge of God and His nature, it doesn't necessarily mean people have inate knowledge of the gospel of salvation, which is a much trickier thing. Which is why I would allow for ignorance of the gospel.

And Talen has a point about the child's salvation being dependent on the parent's spiritual status: "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (1 Corinthians 7:14, NJKV). However, here again there is still the concept of personal responsibility for sin. And since sinful thought is also sin, a child is still capable of sin from the moment of birth. There are, however, possible arguments to be made for an element of purity in a child: consider how many times we are called to be like children in following God (for example, Epehesians 5:1).

Tim: John 9:1-12 is about God creating ways to show his glory to the people of the world (okay, in what appears to our imperfect eyes to be a rather unecessarily cruel way on this occasion) and indicates that the suffering of an individual is not necessarily the result of sin (and indeed can bring us closer to God - 'My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him - James 1: 2-4, 12, NKJV) . I guess I don't really see the relevance of this passage to the current discusson. Could you please explain?

Also, I think there is a difference between not relying on good works to pave the way to heaven (by the way, Romans 3:28 - "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law") and grappling with our sinful natures while accepting God's grace in the form of Christ's sacrifice. After all, there is James (again): "But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:18, NKJV) Works don't grant salvation; that comes only by faith. But good works are a natural result of faith, of the urge to fulfil the word of God and live as He would have you live. It's also a way of testifying to God in your life (like what I said regarding Matt's earlier post about 'silent evangelism') so that others can see your faith and come to salvation.

And one other thing: I came across this (while trying to work out exactly where in James the faith and works stuff was) which may well tear my previous theories to shreds: "For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified" (Romans 2:12-13, NKJV). It seems that sin is sin and those outside of God's law will surely perish, "For there is no partiality with God." (Romans 2:11, NKJV). Damnit.
 

I like Matt's idea about not reading everones comments. Mainly coz i dont have time to read them all.
What i know is that God is fair and just. He is also incredibly gracious.
As for babies or disabled people that cannot fathom, as people they are sinful but since they are unable to understand or fathom the name that they are saved under, God is gracious and I believe will not hold their sin against them. This is only possible in Christ. More good news to spread.
I would have liked to write this comment more eloquently but I just dont have the time atm.
 

[Sorry Matt, a bit behind on blogging.]

My answer is: I don't know. I don't think you can know - although the bible has hints (in multiple directions, mind you) not enough concrete evidence to form an opinion. And I am perfectly happy to not have an opinion for things I think you cannot decide.

I would love to be sentimental and think "a loving God wouldn't condemn little babies to death" but I think neither the sentiment, nor the sentimentality are appropriate, nor wise, nor godly, nor right.

We ascribe too much value to "fairness" and not enough to the evilness of sin.

That's me done.
 

I am posting here at Matt’s invitation as the pastor of his church. He’s raised a difficult question, and there have been some good thoughts expressed here. Because it is a difficult question, unfortunately my answer is not brief.

I would say that the tone of one early post was unhelpful to my way of thinking. I am not sure of the etiquette you all adopt on Matt’s blog, and maybe I am sensitive, but I would be horrified if I heard a Christian speaking in terms such as “ straight-out screwed” or “rough biscuits” or calling the disabled “too stupid”.

And in fact, that’s not at all how I hear Christians talking normally. Perhaps the poster genuinely heard someone claiming to be a Christian use those terms. But if not, I suspect that what was being done is what’s called a ‘straw man’, where you paint a stereotype picture of your opponent, only to tear it down, as easily as you would a man of straw.

Anyway, onto the question of God’s judgment upon those, like infants, or the severely intellectually disabled, whose brain functioning is too undeveloped or impaired to be able to hear and understand the gospel of Jesus, and who therefore also cannot be said to commit actual sin in that state.

Actually, I’d really like to point you to a very helpful book called Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem. It’s a chunky dictionary-sized volume that presents Christian teaching in a very clear, courteous and Bible based way. He also tries to present alternative Christian views as fairly as he can, and mostly manages a good job of this, while weighing up arguments for an against. Keen Christians ought to save up and purchase a copy. (You can often get it on a sale at Koorong.)

To make it easy on myself I could just reprint what he has to say on the topic under the heading “Are Infants Guilty Before They Commit Actual Sins?” (pp 499-501). However this would be breaking copyright, so I will give the gist of his argument, with a few quotes and some extra comments of my own.

Grudem notes that the Bible’s teaching about original sin, or as he prefers it, “inherited guilt”, indicates that even before birth, children have a guilty standing before God. This “sinful nature” not only gives them a tendency to sin, but also means that God views them as “sinners”. This teaching can be found especially in Romans 5:12-21.

This idea of inherited guilt involves a more corporate view of humanity than we Western individualists are used to. However it is one that can be illustrated in some small sense by the increasing realisation of many Australians of our need to say ‘sorry’ to the indigenous inhabitants of our land for their treatment in the past. So, even though we did not personally dispossess any indigenous Australians of their land, because this happened more than a hundred years before our birth, we are still the beneficiaries of their dispossession (e.g. grant of allegedly empty crown lands to churches). And their present day descendants are often still suffering because of this past. And so though we are not personally responsible for it, yet in some sense we acknowledge a corporate involvement in the sins of our ancestors, which we want to apologise for and repudiate.

The analogy is not perfect. But it gives a small parallel to the biblical idea of inherited guilt. You can see the idea that we are born sinful as part of the human race, for example, in Psalm 51:5: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” (NIV) Likewise, Psalm 58:3 indicates that a child’s sinful nature manifests itself very early in life - “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.” (NIV)

Of course, no parent is a perfect model of goodness to their children. Speaking personally, I frequently model impatience or self-centredness, despite better intentions. However every parent would know that children do not need to be taught selfishness. They are intrinsically self-centred. And they work out how to lie without being taught and so on. The much-vaunted ‘innocence of children’ is an inaccurate concept.

So from a biblical point of view, can such infants be saved before they are old enough to understand and believe the gospel. Well if so, only on the basis of Christ’s redeeming work, and not on the basis of their own righteousness or innocence.

There are one or two hints that Good can bring regeneration to a child before the age of conscious thought. So for example, Luke 1:15 reports the angel saying of John the Baptist, “…he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” (ESV). Likewise King David said, “…you made me trust in you even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.” (Psalm 22:9-10, NIV).

We are normally saved by faith in God’s Word (Romans 10:9). But here it seems God can save infants in an unusual way, bringing regeneration before they can understand and believe the gospel. However, all such children who grow to adulthood will undoubtedly go on to believe.

We should also note the frequent pattern of Scripture to bless the children of believers, such that we may say God often works through families. So for example, the entire households of Lydia (Acts 16:15), the Philippian gaoler (Acts 16:33) & Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16) were baptised, and this may have included children.

Certainly, 1 Corinthians 7:14 indicates the children of believers are to be raised as “holy”. “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

In this context, “holy” is not an exact equivalent of “saved” since in v16, the unbelieving partner does not automatically believe and be saved. It means something more like “possessing the status of belonging to God”. I.e. the default setting of the children of believers is “inside” the people of God, rather than “outside” (even if only one parent believes, as in 1 Cor 7:14).

Further we should also note that Jesus welcomes little children - even infants - Luke 18:15. And his words in Matthew 18:1-6 praise the humility of children. Matt 18:6 also indicates that “little ones” can believe in him.

Grudem concludes from these and other passages that “These passages do not show that God automatically saves the children of all believers (for we all know of children of godly parents who have grown up and rejected the Lord, and Scripture also gives such examples as Esau and Absalom), but they do indicate that God’s ordinary pattern, the “normal” or expected way in which he acts, is to bring the children of believers to himself. With regards to believers’ children who die very young, we have no reason to think it would be otherwise.” (p500)

The example of Bathsheba’s first child, who died in infancy may be suggestive. His father David, had confidence that he, David, would see God after death (Pss 23:6, 16:10; 49:15). When his son died, he also said these words (2 Sam 12:23), “I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” Grudem comments that these passages should give comfort to believers who have lost children in infancy.

What about the children of unbelievers who die at a very early age? Scripture is silent. So we must leave the matter in God’s hands. However, we can trust him to be both just and merciful, because that is how he has revealed himself on so many other matters. (The cross is the supreme example of this – here God is both just in administering the punishment for sin; and yet he is merciful, in that through the self-substitution of his own Son, Jesus, we are spared the punishment we deserve – see Romans 3:21-26.)

If any dying infant children of unbelievers are saved, it will not be on the basis of any merit or innocence we might presume they have of their own. Rather it would be on the basis of Christ’s redeeming work. Scripture does not allow us to say more than that.

Deuteronomy 29:29 says “The secret things belong to the LORD our God” implying that we have to be satisfied with not knowing the answers to some questions this side of heaven. The same verse goes on to encourage us to concentrate on what God has revealed in his Word.

Kind regards,

Sandy
 

Sandy, Talen's not a Christian. He had a strong Christian upbringing, which is why he tends to be interested in debates like this, and have some knowledge of the subject matter. But while he doesn't hold anything against Christians (indeed, he has a great deal of respect for many of them), he believes that the religion wasn't right for him.

In any case, speaking as his wife and partner and feeling the need to defend him, since you seem to be casting him in a very negative light with how you interpret his mannerisms, I don't believe he was implying for a moment that a Christian spoke that way to him, but rather that this is how his interpretation of the bible speaks on the subject. Simplified, certainly, but the bluntness of the statements shouldn't detract from the measure of truth behind them.

And what's so horrifying about hearing a Christian use the terms anyway? Most Christians I know /do/ speak like that (when it's not inappropriate, of course), it being fairly normal.

With regards to the book, quoting from it for the purposes of this debate would be for educational/demonstratory purposes, and therefore falls under the "Fair Use" clause. Please feel free to quote - I'm quite interested.

My view on the entire subject? I can never have faith in a God who holds one person responsible for the sins of another, and it's one of the primary reasons I chose to leave the Christian faith. Considering somebody guilty before proven innocent, rather than the other way around, goes against the basic tenets of justice as we (as a society) perceive them. I believe that a person should only ever be judged by their own choices and actions, not somebody else's; saying all humans are inherently sinful because their parents and their parents' parents sinned, makes God like a teacher who holds everybody back after class - even the good kids who he /knows/ haven't misbehaved - just because one kid did something wrong.

Also, as I've mentioned here before, I feel that the "we are all born sinful" philosophy is all to often used as an excuse to be depressed, or belittle oneself, or to not try as hard; it is my belief that having a little pride, and faith in /humanity/ and /oneself/, takes a great deal more courage and shapes more "good" people than the idea of inherent guilt does.
 

I dont really have anything to say on in this debate myself, but a did stumble accros a web page of someone who has a lot to say on a large number of christain/bible issues, and there was at least one disitation on life after death.
the addy is: http://bible-truths.com/
PS I dont endorse any of what he has to say (I think he could well be a nutter), i just thought it might provide food for thought.