The Great Paradox

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Austin

Thank you Randy!
It's great to hear from someone with some godly sense. Iam happy that I'm cloaked in His righteousness and not my own.It took me about twenty five years to learn that lesson.After learning it and realizing that Jesus loved me not because of anything I did but because He wanted to.I then began to put the pieces together. When the revelation of that truth fully hit me it caused me love Him even more. And now I know for a certainty that salvation is in His hands and not ours. I also realized if no one from Moses to Jesus could keep the law and by it no one was made perfect I kind of figured I was no different. When I trying to keep all the 2,362 commandments of both new and old testment I found the verse in Romans 3;20, and quickly realized I was going about it the wrong way and then the understanding of why I always had so many problems was brought to light. Thank the Lord Jesus that we still have His written word or I could only imagine where people would lead us!
Hebrews Chapter 10:12 But this Man, after He had offered, (ONE SACRIFICE) for (SINS) "plurality, means all sin" (FOREVER) sat down on the right hand of of God. " Sounds like a finished work for all, when are we going to start teling them the good news so they can come to The Lord instead of thinking they can't be forgiven or that God hates them??

Not sure what the source is of this last line. I don't think anyone on this thread believes that sinners can't be forgiven or that God hates them. ???

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Your real paradox is this: we deserve eternal punishment because we fail to accomplish the impossible.

Good observation.

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Completely different RW, but for the sake of context, I don't believe Acts 2:38 is the magical formula, I believe strongly in justification by faith.

So heres the difference in the infant and the Native American. The infant has no knowledge of sin and has not committed sin. The Bible calls infants "innocent" and speaks of the innocence of young children likened unto the Kingdom of Heaven.

Whereas the Native American may not have had someone preach the gospel to him, but He still has comiited sin, and is therefore guilty. The Native American has the chance to draw close to God through both the creation and his own conscience, which witnesses to right and wrong. Furthermore, lets say this NA was the Chief of his tribe, and he executed the justice. Everytime He makes a judgment, he testifies that He know the differrence between right and wrong. Along with his tribesman who accept the judgment.

However, if the NA or any heathen would seek after God through the things revealed to him by creation and conscience, it is quite likely He would be brought by God to saving faith. The Bible gives such examples, beginning with Abraham who was a pagan living in a world without a special revelation of God, as well as Cornelius, and the men of Macedonia who God sent Paul to, not to mention thousands of testimonies in contemporary times of pagans who sought after the Creator, but didn't know much about Him, yet were someone brought to faith in Christ.

I think Romans 1,2,&3 says it much better than me.

You shouldn't side-step an entire biblical theology because you emotionally aren't sure it means for children.

Apparently, many Christians believe that there is a magical split-second in time before which a child, if they die, will go to heaven, and after which, if they die will spend eternity suffering in hell. They call this the "age of accountability."

One writer said this:

In 2 Samuel 12, King David’s newborn son fell terminally ill. After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” It is clear that David’s dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son. Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be “in the house of the Lord” (Psalm 23:6). Therefore, we can conclude that “the house of the Lord” would be the eternal destination of his infant son to whom David would one day go. King David was looking forward to the day when he would be able to meet his son in heaven. Absolutely nothing in this context gives any hint that the dead infant son’s soul would go to hell.

I think this is an opportunity to consider the foreknowledge/election idea we see in Scripture. God knowing who will be obedient, elects those "whom he foreknew."

Also, Luke leaves us with something to be curious about:

15. And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when [his] disciples saw [it], they rebuked them.
16 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Either way, rejecting the idea of Original Sin because of an emotional compulsion toward little children is hardly a logical way to approach the topic, IMO.

[Jason B]

I don't outright reject original sin or total depravity. What I am pointing out is that I haven't found an explanation of either doctrine that I feel like addresses the instance of an infant dying WHILE being consistent with their stated doctrine. If anything at least the catholics are consistent, in that they believe a baby has to be baptized to cleanse it from sin. It is error, but at least its consistency.


Furthermore, I don't reject doctrine based on "emotional complusion". If that were the case I'd be a universalist. I'm not saying that babies go to hell, and I'm not making excuses for the heathen who hasn't "heard" the gospel, so I'm a bit confused at the "emotional" shot-what are you getting at?

BTW-is the "writer" you quoted John MacArthur? I've heard him speak something very similar to that. (Which I am in agreement with, but I don't think it is consistent with total depravity)