The Great Paradox

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Is an infant dying being sent to eternal torment any more depraved than a native in North America who died a few days after the upper room experience and never heard Peter quote Acts 2:38?

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.

[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.