A baby is NOT born in debt

[Jack]

Quote by: tivodan1116 You say others can support their beliefs with Bible text that makes theirs "correct" Christian beliefs, etc. We're getting a bit lax here, and my ecumenical nature has always lent me to think that many denominations have good beliefs. My responses are limited to this scope only: The OP said that babies are born condemned according to "Christian" beliefs. I said that is incorrect, and according to Christian beliefs they are not condemned and in fact babies and children are among God's most blessed. To show your point to be valid, you must show via proof that (a) there are Christian denominations that believe babies are condemned to hell at birth (as the OP says), (b) that those denominations source that belief with specific Bible verses, and finally (c) what those verses are.

Since this dude already did that, I'll let his webpage speak to that.
(Thanks, MJ)

[Aussie]

Quote by: Jack Since this dude already did that, I'll let his webpage speak to that. (Thanks, MJ)

Thanks Jack, this backs up point number 5 in my first post!

5) CONFUSING DOCTRINE - Encouraging blind acceptance and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible doctrine

link:Religion and techniques of brainwashing

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Maybe you should go back and read your own posts.

That doesn't mean they're condemned to Hell. They can still go to Heaven. Big difference.

[Winter wind]

Unless they are the angel of death or someone similar, how can anyone be sure?

[Kakumei]

Quote by: Tycoon And at what age does a person become responsible to love and know God? Just more questions that Christianity cannot and will never be able to answer, because there are no answers.

Simply put, a true religion can EXPAND its doctrine, because it uses prophecy from God as the ultimate souce of knowlage and not the Bible. Thats a mis conception among many christians, they think the bible contians all answers, when infact it points to the true souce of knowlage, God, and away from itself.

[Jack]

So what does "true" religion contend god says about babies and young children going to hell?

[Kakumei]

Quote by: Jack So what does "true" religion contend god says about babies and young children going to hell?

I dont know if its a 'true' religion or not, but it is often expanding its teachings. Generally, only people who are aware of the diffrence between good and evil and have been taught by Christian beliefs will be receiving the full punishment.

[Chancellor]

The answer to the original post is in the book linked here: Amazon.com: The Imputation of Adam's Sin: John Murray: Books

One of the reviewers offered the following summary of the book:

This is an extremely dense book which is definitely worth reading. It contains the standard articulation of the Reformed view of man's relationship to Adam. If you purchase the book, or would just like to read a decent summary instead of buying it, perhaps the review below will be helpful. The paragraph breaks correspond with the chapter breaks.

In the opening pages Murray concerns himself with the parallelism contained in Rom 5:12. He argues that the surrounding section is a sustained argument that draws a strong analogy between the work of Adam and of Christ and the Christian's relationship to each. He begins by discussing the syntactical construction of 5:12 and then surveys and refutes the Pelagian and Roman Catholic views. He also surveys Calvin's view and while Murray agrees with Calvin's general conclusions, he believes Calvin's exegesis is inaccurate. He is critical of the Pelagian and RC views in that they do not seem to reflect the one man and one sin terminology with which Paul connects humanity with the first and second Adam. What Paul is arguing according to Murray is that all of humanity stands with Adam as their representation to the extent that both his guilt and his corruption are imputed to them. And thus those who stand with Christ as their representative receive both forgiveness and righteousness by imputation.

Murray then examines more deeply the nature of man's solidarity with Adam. He interacts with the realist view and the representational view. These two views attempt to explain the specific ground of the imputation of Adam's first sin with humanity that goes beyond the simple fact that there exists genealogical solidarity between Adam and humanity. The realist position, it seems is looking for a way to remove the difficulties regarding the punishment of someone for a sin in which he did not participate. The realist argues that human nature was present in its entirety in Adam and that each person thereafter is an individualization of this human nature and is therefore guilty of Adam's sin. But since they were really present in seed form in Adam, it is just to hold them guilty for there participation in Adam's sin. Adam's sin is therefore imputed to humanity in an immediate way. In the representational view, Adam's sin is imputed to humanity in the very same way (parallelism again) that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer.

Murray says that mediate imputation emphasizes the hereditary corruption as the medium or means by which Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity. This is to say that man sins because he is born corrupt, but he is only guilty in that he himself sins as a moral agent. Murray characterizes the immediate position as God looking on posterity as being one with their father Adam and their sin coexisting with his just as if it were theirs. He then argues for immediate imputation in four extended arguments. The first seems to me to be the most compelling and easiest to summarize. Murray's basic exegetical point stemming from Romans 5 has been that Paul's "one sinned" and "all sinned" language refers to the same sin viewed from the participation of Adam and his posterity. In other words, there is exact correlation between the manner and nature of sin of Adam and his posterity. Thus, since there is not any medium between Adam's sin and the death inflicted upon him, neither should we interject any medium between the sin and punishment in the case of Adam's posterity.

Chapter Four is probably one of the more difficult to comprehend and summarize, especially because of his use of Latin terminology which he does not define. But with the use of a Latin dictionary, Murray's critique of Hodge on imputation and his alternative position become clearer. Hodge argues that the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity consists simply in the obligation to satisfy justice, i.e., the exposure to punishment on account of Adams sin - the reatus poenae. Murray responds that the reatus poenae, may be imputed only if the reatus culpa is also imputed. In other words, the demerit, or guilt of Adam's sin must also be imputed as possession of his posterity before any obligation to satisfy justice can also be imputed. The guilt is the ground of the punishment. So, Murray contends that the biblical teaching on imputation is hung delicately between two poles. On one hand, it is more than judicial liability, but it is less than considering posterity to have eaten the fruit in the same way that Adam did - it was his action not theirs. The biblical position is that in Adam's sin, humanity was constituted sinners in the same manner that the elect are constituted as righteous - parallelism again.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: lullaby chainer That doesn't mean they're condemned to Hell. They can still go to Heaven. Big difference.

I just came up with a hypothesis. Doesn't mean it's right or that it is even likely to be right, but it's an idea.

What if how much debt you had grew in relation to how much good you could do to be perfect and what you are? Like a baby cannot do much good or evil, therefore there isn't much debt. However, an average adult who could have been a much better person then he is right now would have much greater debt.

Just a thought.

[Derek Wolff]

Not all Christians believe in ORIGINAL SIN. Which is what you are referring too. Original sin is based on the fact the child is a human, and as a human he was thrown out of the garden of eden for eating of the fruit, by his nature as a human he is a sinner. Christians teach we are all sinners, and incomplete without their God.

[Kamehameha34]

[Deleted and made into a thread]