Original Sin

[JBlack]

I was talking to one of my cousins who is a Christian. We started talking about children and babies that die. My cousin, as well as many other Christians I know, believe that babies and kids will go to heaven automatically.

But they also believe in Original sin. They believe that we're all born hell-bound sinners, and must be saved. If you don't die an accepter of Jesus Christ, then you go to hell.

I point out to my cousin that this is kind of contradictory. How can a baby go to heaven if that baby is already a sinner, being that he was born a sinner. We're all born sinners and that's why we all need Jesus Christ....right?

Apparently I was wrong (as usual ). It's different for children. So then at what age does Original Sin kick in? He tells me after 12, is when you need Jesus. He claims this to be biblically supported. Disappointingly (but not surprisingly), he wasn't able to tell me where in the bible this was.

And so my question:

1. Do babies and children go to heaven automatically?
2. Is there really a such thing as Original Sin?
3. Is there anything in the bible about 12 being the "cut off " age?

[AIEC]

There it is. All have sinned, sin is not imputed when there is no law, infants have no understanding of the law, so infants are sinless. Where do you believe God contradicted himself above?

I don't believe you are using the scriptures within their context in the book of James as I have explained in detail to you, can you please give me a biblical justification for applying James to your application of babies? When you isolate a verse you can make it say anything you want. In your next post please include the context of James and explain, as I did, how you understand the context and then you can show us how that applies to babies.

What? Then why are they condemned if they broke no law? Because they were born??

I can see this will be going in circles for quite some time, the fact that you made a statement like this after my last post tells me either you did not read it all or you want to keep trying different angles at getting your point across until something works. Please answer my last post in detail as I did to yours and we may eliminate redundant questions. But if you choose not to, at least answer this one from my last post, do you believe children who are born "sinless" are righteous?

Children are not responsible for sins committed by their parents:

Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

I never said they were. And your statement is proven to be correct by your verse. However, Adam is different, Romans 5 clearly tells us this, I really think you should comment on the verses of Romans 5 so we may all see how you make it all fit. While the sins of your father cannot condemn you, the bible tells us over and over that Adams sin does.

This innocence of children applied to Jesus Christ also:

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

First of all, Jesus Christ was not born the same way mankind was born, through the seed of man, this is how the sin of Adam passes on to all men as they are born through the seed of men, except Christ. Now a question comes to mind, why would Mary have to concieve a child through God and not Joseph if all children are born sinless? Like I said earlier, you cannot pick one or two verses and try to make them say what you want, don't you believe that you have to look at scripture as a whole and then make your conclusions? Every verse you are using to prove that babies are born sinless, one, does not agree with scripture as a whole, and two, even the verses themselves do not teach that children are born sinless, you are reading into these verses what you will and are contradicting many other verses that I have shown you in my last post about the condition of children at birth.

Yes. Mankind inherited knowledge of good and evil from Adam & Eve. Satan told them they would become as Gods, knowing good from evil. When they ate the forbidden fruit:

And the eyes of them were both open, and they knew that they were naked; ...

Being naked wasn't a sin before eating the forbidden fruit! God never commanded them to wear clothes. They had one, and only one, law -- do not eat the forbidden fruit. After eating the fruit, they became as Gods and "made their own laws."

Mankind inherited much more than knowledge of good and evil from Adam, they inherited spiritual death. Again, it is very important that you comment on Romans 5 in detail. And being naked was not a sin AFTER they ate the fruit either. They wore clothes to cover their shame which they had none of before the fall.

Consider this AIEC. The scriptures state that mankind will enter the Kingdom of God as little children:

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

This does not mean small as a baby, helpless, etc. It means sinless. Christians will be converted from physical to spiritual bodies and become as little children once again. You start with a clean slate. God wipes away your sins committed as a human. The wages for these sins have already been paid. Thanks to Jesus, you inherit eternal life as a spirit with a clean record.

If God compares little children entering the human world with those born again into the spiritual world, then it is an easy conclusion that little children are sinless! There is no other conclusion as flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of God. The common denominator has to be some characteristic which is not physical. That leaves only sinless. Those entering both the physical world and spiritual world are born without sin.

You are once again failing to look at each verse within it's immediate context and then within the context of the bible. Let's look at Matthew 18 in context:
Matthew 18
1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? (this is the context)
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him (this was no baby), and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become AS LITTLE CHILDREN, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (humility of a child is the context not being sinless)
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

The child or children being spoken of here clearly have the capacity to "believe" in Christ. How can you apply this to a baby being sinless? Or how can you apply this to a child who has the ability to believe as being sinless? Does not the child's ability to be humble and believe tell you that he can discern right from wrong? The truth is that this passage does not teach that we are to be literally like children, but that we are to become humble as a "child" of God. If Jesus wanted to drive your point home, he should have held a baby in his arms. He of course did not do that because every true believer is called a "child" of God or "little children".
John 13
33 LITTLE CHILDREN, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.


And if your conclusion is so easy, that little children are sinless, tell me, how old was this child that came to Jesus? Could he have been 8, may be 10, may be 3? You see the age is of no importance because the meaning of this passage has nothing to do with the sinlessnes of children but with the way we as children of God approach God. Incidentally, I still would like you to answer the age question if you don't agree with my conclusion.

If all mankind is born with "original sin," how can Jesus Christ be your Savior?

The wages of sin is death, but Jesus never sinned, therefore He did not have to die. So He could lay down His life willingly to pay for our sins.

But if all mankind after Adam & Eve are born with original sin, then Jesus was born with sin as a human and was not sinless! Consequently, He could not die for our sins -- as He had to die for His own sin(s).

I believe I already covered how Jesus was born sinless, and why only he could die for our sins and not that child that came to Jesus when he called him. Do you realize what you are insinuating here? The child that Jesus called, that humbled himself, that believed in him, could have laid down his life to pay for our sins because according to you he was sinless.
I find it odd that you quote from Romans "the wages of sin is death" to prove one of your points, but yet you don't acknowledge "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Why is that?

As I said earlier, I think it would be most beneficial if you went back to my last post and responded to everyone of my verses as you understand them and not try to cancel them out with another verse, once you have done this, I believe we will be understanding one another a little better.

[myth-one.com]

In a "few" words, the following seems to be what AIEC and I suppose other "Red Letter Christians" believe:

No all babies do not go to heaven automatically,

A baby can't choose whether to hear the gospel or not. If a baby's parents aren't Christian, then it's very likely that the baby can die and never hear a word of it. So this baby doesn't get to go to heaven.

[center]<============================ Moving On ==========================>[/center]

Let's pick one baby from each of the two possible groups:

Baby "A" is one headed to Heaven.

Baby "B" does not go to Heaven.

Question: Where does Baby "B" go, and for how long?

[AIEC]

In a "few" words, the following seems to be what AIEC and I suppose other "Red Letter Christians" believe:

No all babies do not go to heaven automatically,

A baby can't choose whether to hear the gospel or not. If a baby's parents aren't Christian, then it's very likely that the baby can die and never hear a word of it. So this baby doesn't get to go to heaven.

[center]<============================ Moving On ==========================>[/center]

Let's pick one baby from each of the two possible groups:

Baby "A" is one headed to Heaven.

Baby "B" does not go to Heaven.

Question: Where does Baby "B" go, and for how long?

This is where I figure you'd take the conversation, no problem, my posts are there if you are still interested.

[myth-one.com]

... at least answer this one from my last post, do you believe children who are born "sinless" are righteous?

Define righteous as applied to newborns. I believe humans are born totally dependant on others for their survival. They do not have any concept of righteous or unrighteous. Righteous is defined as being upright or moral. If they had to be categorized into one or the other, I would say righteous -- as they are not immoral to my knowledge.

While the sins of your father cannot condemn you, the bible tells us over and over that Adams sin does.

So the sins of our fathers don't condemn us, but the sins of our great great, great, great, great, . . . grandfather do?

They wore clothes to cover their shame which they had none of before the fall.

And why did they have shame? Could it be that they felt they were doing something wrong?

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

This does not mean small as a little child, helpless, etc. It means sinless. Christians will be converted from physical to spiritual bodies and become as little children once again. Only the sinless enter the Kingdom of God. So Christians will be born again into the Kingdom of God without any sins -- exactly as the little child Jesus is talking about entered the world and still was at the time of talking to Jesus. He or she could have been 8, 10, or 3 and still be innocent of any sin due to not understanding it.

You didn't ask me so maybe I can give you the semi liberal open theist christian side of belief. Christian Open theism is just a liberal interpretation of scripture. Its a recognized form of Christianity, not a cult. We believe that JC is our lord and savior.

OK, if you believe JC (I'm guessing Jesus Christ) is your Lord and Savior, what is He saving you from?

[AIEC]

Define righteous as applied to newborns. I believe humans are born totally dependant on others for their survival. They do not have any concept of righteous or unrighteous. Righteous is defined as being upright or moral. If they had to be categorized into one or the other, I would say righteous -- as they are not immoral to my knowledge.

You are again trying to use your logic and apply it to scripture to make it say something it isn't. One is either righteous or wicked according to scripture, saved or unsaved, a child of God or a child of satan. What you are suggesting is that children are sinless, righteous, saved and children of God. And I am assuming by your logic that as soon as they realize they have sinned then they would loose their salvation and have to believe to regain it? Can you clarify on who they belong to and up to what point, biblicaly?

So the sins of our fathers don't condemn us, but the sins of our great great, great, great, great, . . . grandfather do?

That's right, now we are getting somewhere. Why do you simply refuse to comment on Romans 5 like I asked you to, in detail and show us how that fits into your theology? Also why do choose to only answer select statements from my previous posts without addressing all of the other important questions and verses I presented to you so that you may show everyone how they harmonize with your theology? Don't you think you should at least put your time into answering my questions from scripture and not your own reasoning? Another question would help clarify much for me, do you believe the bible to be your only authority or source for truth?

And why did they have shame? Could it be that they felt they were doing something wrong?

Yes they sinned. they disobeyed God, what does this have to do with our topic? Are you trying to compare children to Adam and Eve? On what biblical basis? Again for the sake of argument, let's run with it. Adam and Eve were born sinless because sin did not yet exist in the world. You show me a SCRIPTURE that tells you they did not understand right from wrong. That's right it doesn't exist. Here is what we know biblicaly, Adam and eve knew what God expected of them and knew the consequences, pretty hard to relate them to children who don't know right from wrong. Let's do a comparison:
Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, LEST YE DIE.


So she was able to explain to satan what the requirements of God were and consequences of disobedience. How do you relate them to little children who don't know right from wrong? It is obvious that she knew the exact requirements and consequences of her actions before Satan deceived[/b] her, that's right, she had to be deceived into eating the forbidden fruit. can you not see that there is no parallel between a little child and Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were the only ones alive ever to be sinless, besides Christ, the second Adam. There is another interesting thought, why is Christ called the second Adam?

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

This does not mean small as a little child, helpless, etc. It means sinless. Christians will be converted from physical to spiritual bodies and become as little children once again. Only the sinless enter the Kingdom of God. So Christians will be born again into the Kingdom of God without any sins -- exactly as the little child Jesus is talking about entered the world and still was at the time of talking to Jesus. He or she could have been 8, 10, or 3 and still be innocent of any sin due to not understanding it.

I never said it meant"small" as a little child, I know I keep repeating myself, but you should really answer my posts line by line so we don't keep going over the same things. You completely missed the point of the context, the little child was used as a representation of how God our father wants us, his children, to come to him, with humility. You are improperly adding your own opinions in this verse.

You didn't ask me so maybe I can give you the semi liberal open theist christian side of belief. Christian Open theism is just a liberal interpretation of scripture. Its a recognized form of Christianity, not a cult. We believe that JC is our lord and savior.

OK, if you believe JC (I'm guessing Jesus Christ) is your Lord and Savior, what is He saving you from?

I'm not sure why you keep putting in my name on other peoples quotes. I did not make that statement that you quoted with my name on it.
Look, with all due respect, you keep dodging the verses and questions I have put forth with hypothetical situations and improper use of scriptures. That is why we are not getting anywhere. Go back and take your time, answer all of my questions from all of my posts to you, respond to all of the verses I have presented in my deffense and how you harmonize them with your view, and after you have done this, I believe we will finally begin to move forward. Thanks.

[myth-one.com]

1. Do babies and children go to heaven automatically?

No. The belief is they go to heaven because they died sinless. But that path to salvation is now closed! The two testaments of the Bible represent wills or covenants between God and man. Under the first testament, the only path to eternal life was to never sin, because the wages of sin is death. However, there was a fault in the first testament in that all mankind sinned! Therefore, no one could gain eternal life under that first testament. Since the first covenant contained faults, God created a second, or New Testament:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (Hebrews 8:6-7)

The New Testament requirement for gaining eternal life ia a belief in Jesus Christ and one's Savior from sin. Upon creating a New Testament, the first covenant became the Old Testament:

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

The New Testament covenant became effective and the Old Testament covenant vanished away when Jesus Christ, the testator, died on the cross:

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. (Hebrews 9:16-17)

Once the New Testament became active, the previous testament became obsolete. No one can now gain eternal life by remaining sinless as required under the Old Testament. This includes infants and children! The only path to salvation presently is through a belief in Jesus Christ under terms of the New Testament covenant, and infants do not believe in Jesus Christ!

2. Is there really a such thing as Original Sin?

The original or first sin was Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.

3. Is there anything in the bible about 12 being the "cut off " age?

There is evidence that the "cutoff" age of accountability for the Children of Israel was anyone twenty years old and upward. Perhaps your cousin determined it to be 12 from the age at which Jesus started "going about His father's Business" in Luke chapter 2.

[center]<==================================================================>[/center]

I'm not sure why you keep putting in my name on other peoples quotes.

Me either. The only thing that comes to mind is ignorance. Perhaps some carelessness also. Please accept my apology. I vaguely remember you mentioning this once before. "Pastor4Jesus" made some statements I attributed to you (at least I think he did). I have had some difficulty staying focused on many postings in this thread due to length. That is not a complaint or excuse, but an admission. I'm part of the problem judging from this post -- so I'll take my "meds" and go to bed!

[AIEC]

I'm not sure why you keep putting in my name on other peoples quotes.

Me either. The only thing that comes to mind is ignorance. Perhaps some carelessness also. Please accept my apology. I vaguely remember you mentioning this once before. "Pastor4Jesus" made some statements I attributed to you (at least I think he did). I have had some difficulty staying focused on many postings in this thread due to length. That is not a complaint or excuse, but an admission. I'm part of the problem judging from this post -- so I'll take my "meds" and go to bed!

No problem, I understand. Lord bless you my friend.

[myth-one.com]

One is either righteous or wicked according to scripture, saved or unsaved, a child of God or a child of satan.

Righteous definition: Saved or unsaved.

Infants do not understand or believe in Jesus as their Savior. So they are not "saved" and are not "righteous" by the above definition.

Can you clarify on who they belong to and up to what point, biblicaly?

They "belong" to their parents in the USA. In some countries they may belong to the state or community. Biblically, they are human and can die like any other animal. When they die they rest in their graves awaiting their resurrection like any other dead human.

There is another interesting thought, why is Christ called the second Adam?

Are you speaking about the following verse?

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (I Corinthians 15:42-45)

This is Paul's description of dead Christians being born again as spiritual beings during the first resurrection at the Second Coming.

The Christian body that is buried is corruptible, dishonored, weak, and a natural body (shown in RED above). This is the physical body which is buried like a seed, or sown, when we die.

At the resurrection, Christians are raised up as incorruptible, glorified, powerful, spiritual bodies (shown in GREEN above). This is exactly what the above verses state! Read them again several times if you must to confirm their simple truth.

Those humans who died believing in Jesus Christ will be born as spiritual beings at the first resurrection. Since this is their second birth, they are born again. The first man ever created was a living, breathing being or soul. The last being man can ever become will be a quickening spirit or spiritual body. It then goes on to say:

Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

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

You completely missed the point of the context, the little child was used as a representation of how God our father wants us, his children, to come to him, with humility.

"Except ye be converted, and become as little children." Christians will be converted from flesh and blood physical bodies to everlasting spiritual bodies. They are born a second time, or born again, and become sinless, just as little children are when born! This verse negates any inherited original sin. Neither humans nor sinners can enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;...

No humans allowed!

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revelers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

No sinners allowed!

We will enter the Kingdom of God as sinless immortal spiritual angels. We will still have freedom of choice, and can commit new sins after that -- as did Satan and 1/3 of the original angels who rebelled.

No problem, I understand. Lord bless you my friend.

Friend. Darn good word! May the Lord continue to bless you also, my friend. Thanks for understanding.

NOTE: Working on the Romans Chapter 5 reply. This post is large enough.

[Pastor4Jesus]

Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned

--Romans 5:12

I think the story was an extended metaphor, and parable. It was also an (cryptic) truthful account of why we aren't immortal and have some of the beast in us. Free will like freedom is dangerous. Without Jesus coming to rescue us we would have a difficult time in receiving everlasting life.

p4jc

[Cathar1950]

Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned

--Romans 5:12

I think the story was an extended metaphor, and parable. It was also an (cryptic) truthful account of why we aren't immortal and have some of the beast in us. Free will like freedom is dangerous. Without Jesus coming to rescue us we would have a difficult time in receiving everlasting life.

p4jc

Yet sin and death didn't enter the world through one man and Paul's argument is lacking as well as a misinterpretation of the garden myth.
If it didn't come from one man then how does it get fixed with one man?
It doesn't and guess what it hasn't.