Questions about when people get "saved"

[ltwin]

Then why were they baptized?

Why was Abraham circumcised after his faith was already counted to him as righteousness? “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (Romans 4:11). Baptism is a sign and a seal of the righteousness we have by faith. It is the funeral service for the old man (“We were buried therefore with [Christ] by baptism into death”) and a confirmation that we now live in and through Christ (“just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”)

A sign and seal that we have truly been washed and forgiven of our sins in Christ. Baptism is a guarantee that what is promised in the Word is true for believers–you have been washed clean, you have died to sin and self, you have been born again.

Just as Abraham’s circumcision was a physical reminder and guarantee–your heart has been circumcised, you have put off the flesh, you are righteous because of your faith.

 

[MT1926]

I am having some issue understanding your line of reasoning.

I think we are talking past each other and are on different pages.

Let’s go back to Acts 2.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

You said to Baptize a Baby goes against the Spirit of Acts 2:38 because…

people who are baptized need to first believe and repent.

You go onto say that the Baptism itself isn’t regenerative it is YOUR faith in Christ that accomplishes the regeneration.

I point out if God didn’t give us this Sacrament to let us know we have received the Holy Spirit how do we know our faith is strong enough to know. You give the parable of the mustard seed? Not sure where you were going with this?

I asked for scripture that shows us it is faith and repentance with Baptism not present in the formula, you respond…

… received the gift of the Holy Spirit without baptism in Acts 10

I point out in Acts 10 God delivered the Holy Spirit early to prove to Peter that he should Baptize Gentiles so they can receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

You respond…

They received the Spirit and were baptized after the fact.

I point out that if you are going to use this line of reasoning then you also have to admit that no where in Acts 10 does it tell us that the Gentiles had faith and repented before receiving the Holy Spirit.

You respond by saying…

Are you saying that even though they were given the gift of the Holy Spirit they were not regenerated, born again?

OK now we are up to date.

No I am not saying they were not regenerated. All I am saying is you can’t use there regeneration to prove they had faith and repented. You are basically saying Baptism doesn’t regenerate you must repent and have faith so you can’t receive the Holy Spirit and to prove it these Gentiles received the Spirit therefore they must have repented and believed. This is circular reasoning.

That’s my point I never said they weren’t regenerated, all I said is they never repented, so God must be teaching something else here.

Even Peter says these Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit just as he and the other Jewish Christians had. Can you have the Spirit the same way as an Apostle and not be regenerated?

Your final proof here takes us right back to the beginning. You are trying to prove your point on faith and repentance by using two examples where the people who received the Holy Spirit had visible signs showing them their faith and repentance was sincere. How can anyone know their “mustard seed” faith is enough without these signs? God leaving us hanging like this, instead of giving us a visible sign (Baptism), seems like you could be stuck in the prison of your mind.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

But original sin is a “state” of being. It is a fallen nature bent to sin. The sin nature cannot do anything other than sin.

I think this is why I am having troubles understanding your verses.

My understanding of original sin includes what you explain above (concupiscence). However, I understand the sin nature to be the result of original sin, not the definition of original sin.

My understanding of original sin is most basically defined as being separated from God.

The separation from God is the “state of being”. The “state of being” is what we would call the “fallen nature”. And it is this “fallen nature” that causes the sin nature (concupiscence).

So when I read your examples I totally agree that children are not guilty of acting out the “sin nature”. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t still in the state of original sin (separation from God).

That’s why I don’t understand why not being guilty of personal sin means God won’t hold you accountable for original sin?

Let me try to explain further. The way I understand it, when Adam was in the garden he walked with God. Being with God gave Adam a gazillion grace points. When he sinned against God and was booted from the garden he wasn’t allowed to take the grace points with him. Since our father Adam had no grace points to put in the bank we had no inheritance when we were born. This lack of inheritance is what we would call original sin.

If we are born without any grace points, because Adam squandered our inheritance, how does the fact that God doesn’t judge us on personal sin as a baby put grace points in the bank, thus bridging the separation from God?

If we are saved by grace, and original sin is a lack of the grace needed to get to heaven, if not through Baptism, how does the child get the grace needed to go to heaven?

 

[MT1926]

When a child is unbaptized and dies, what happens to his soul…to the souls of babies who die in the womb?

I’ve been wanting to answer this question but I wanted to give it some prayerful thought first.

Officially speaking we do not know what happens to these babies. The Bible does not tell us and there is no official Church teaching that I am aware of.

What I do know is, by definition original sin is a separation from God. Adam walked with God in the garden and when he sinned God no longer walked the earth with man.

Due to this separation (original sin) the gates of heaven were closed to us. Thankfully, Christ came and opened the gates. However, we are still born with original sin, which I would define as the lack of God’s grace to get us to heaven. Without God’s grace, being born anew, we are still separated from Him. You said…

It’s quite simple to me. People who die in infancy are covered by the blood of Jesus.

I disagree. If we are automatically covered by the blood of Jesus then we would already have God’s grace which means we would be born without original sin.

I don’t mean to sound unkind or unloving to these babies. But think through what you claim to it’s logical extent. If the baby in the womb is automatically covered by the blood of Christ wouldn’t it be best for us to terminate the pregnancy instead of bringing that baby into a starving household, what if the baby has a mental defect, what if it is time of war, etc. I’m not saying this is what you are saying I’m just pointing out these are prochoice questions posted right here on this forum. It’s this line of reasoning, that these babies are already saved, as their reason why these people post these questions.

That being said, unofficially I doubt these children would be damned to Hell, but I also doubt they would be in heaven. I would lean more towards them being somewhere content but still not with God.

Also, unofficially, from what I understand from the Catholic point of view. Baptism wipes away the stain of original sin giving the person the free gift of grace allowing the gates of heaven to be open to them. Also, from the Catholic point of view we believe the God takes into account the faith of the parents to allow the child to receive His free gift of Grace through infant Baptism. Finally, Catholics also believe God will bestow His free gift of grace upon the faithful person who intends to be Baptized, but dies before this takes place.

So it is my opinion, not official Church teaching, that God would take the faithful intent of the parent, who would have Baptized their child and raised them in the faith, if they survived, into account in the same way he would for an adult who intended to get Baptized.

I have no way of proving if I am correct. But logically it makes more sense to me than to just say well they’re saved because they are covered by the blood of Christ, but once you reach an age of reason, and are culpable for your sins, you’re no longer covered, unless you repent and believe.

Hope this isn’t to confusing.

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

That’s why I don’t understand why not being guilty of personal sin means God won’t hold you accountable for original sin?

I can’t imagine a pure and holy God condemning to the fires of hell an infant who would never in a million years know why they are crawling around in the fires. Does not God judge the hearts?.. When a child comes to that place when they know to do right but choose to act on what is wrong, they become guilty for the very first time. This guilt is what condemns them. If there is no guilt, because there is no sin committed or knowledge or understanding of sin, then on what bases would God sentence that child to eternal death? On the bases that he has the potential to sin?.. Is that a righteous judgment?

 

[tgGodsway]

This is kind of like punishing a baby for spilling milk at the breakfast table. They spilled it because they are 10 months old and do not know any better. Yet because it was spilled, the offence needs to have justice. This child must be paddled hard for eternity. The baby must pay for his offense. Now that I think about it, if the baby dies at the breakfast table without spilling the milk, he still gets the punishment for the potential of spilling the milk.

NO… this is not the heart of God at all.
Adam sinned for the first time and set in motion the propensity to sin in all of us. Our nature (before new birth) is fallen and cut off from God spiritually. We are spiritually dead even want to know God. Adam needed mercy because Adam was fully aware of what he was doing, even though Eve knew to do right but did not understand the implications of doing wrong she was deceived.

 

[ltwin]

I point out that if you are going to use this line of reasoning then you also have to admit that no where in Acts 10 does it tell us that the Gentiles had faith and repented before receiving the Holy Spirit.

These are righteous Gentiles. We are told in Acts 10:2 that Cornelius was “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.” An angel visits him declaring, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.” In Acts 10:22, Cornelius is described to Peter as “an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation.”

We know this is not the first time they’ve heard about Jesus. Peter mentions this in his sermon, Acts 10:36-38:

As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.

The Scriptures go out of their way to tell us that their hearts were already prepared for receiving the Good News and receiving Christ.

As to not professing faith, they certainly did profess their faith. When the Holy Spirit fell, they began “extolling God.”

Your final proof here takes us right back to the beginning. You are trying to prove your point on faith and repentance by using two examples where the people who received the Holy Spirit had visible signs showing them their faith and repentance was sincere.

Whoa!!! We need to back up. The manifest presence of the Holy Spirit was not a sign for the Gentiles. It was a wake up call to the Jewish Christians.

How can anyone know their “mustard seed” faith is enough without these signs?

The promises of God? Isn’t that what faith is all about, trusting God with or without a sign. Yes, baptism is a wonderful sign and seal of the Gospel, but it is a sign and seal of faith.

 

[MT1926]

I can’t imagine a pure and holy God condemning to the fires of hell an infant who would never in a million years know why they are crawling around in the fires.

I just want to point out here that I never said God condemns babies to hell, that is your opinion. I said…

Officially speaking we do not know what happens to these babies. The Bible does not tell us and there is no official Church teaching that I am aware of.

When a child comes to that place when they know to do right but choose to act on what is wrong, they become guilty for the very first time. This guilt is what condemns them. If there is no guilt, because there is no sin committed or knowledge or understanding of sin, then on what bases would God sentence that child to eternal death? On the bases that he has the potential to sin?.. Is that a righteous judgment?

Once again I never brought up hell I just asked how do they get into heaven still having the fallen nature of original sin? I don’t know where they go, all I do know is the Bible clearly teaches us that original sin, our fallen nature, will keep us from entering the gates of heaven.

Like I already said I don’t know and choose not to judge whether or not God is righteous with what he does with these children. You on the other hand choose to set an unbiblical president and put our God to the test, by saying a righteous God would not do this.

My question to you is…if you claim God would be unrighteous for not allowing babies with original sin, but without personal sin, into heaven today, how does this not make Him unrighteous in the Old Testament? Keep in mind that no one, including babies went to heaven in the Old Testament. If your claim is true that the only thing keeping babies out of heaven is personal sin and our fallen nature has no bearing on children, then the right thing for God to do would have been to allow unknowing babies into heaven in the OT. Correct?

 

[MT1926]

This is kind of like punishing a baby for spilling milk at the breakfast table. They spilled it because they are 10 months old and do not know any better. Yet because it was spilled, the offence needs to have justice. This child must be paddled hard for eternity. The baby must pay for it’s offense. Now that I think about it, if the baby dies at the breakfast table without spilling the milk, they still get the punishment for the potential of spilling the milk.

NO… this is not the heart of God at all.

Agreed this would not be the heart of a God.

Is there some reason you believe God’s heart can only be heaven or eternal punishment? It wasn’t that way in the Old Testament.

Adam sinned for the first time and set in motion the propensity to sin in all of us. Our nature (before new birth) is fallen and cut off from God spiritually. We are spiritually dead even want to know God. Adam needed mercy because Adam was fully aware of what he was doing, even though Eve knew to do right but did not understand the implications of doing wrong she was deceived.

Totally agree before new birth we are spiritually cut off from God. The thing I don’t understand is how you can point this fact out but then say, but if you are a child without personal sin then God will ignore the fact that you are technically spiritually cut off from Him.

Do you see how this doesn’t make sense? How does a lack of personal sin in a child mean they are no longer spiritually cut off from God? That would mean we aren’t born cut off from God we are only cut off at the moment of our first sin.

 

[tgGodsway]

unbiblical president and put our God to the test

There you go again MT… you make these highly inflammatory statements about what I do. I apologize if I assumed you thought babies go to hell. It seemed you were going down that path. But I was wrong. I concede the point. But I do know God shows mercy on the innocent. How do I know this? because He is pure in heart. He will not judge un-righteously. Does this mean I am testing God? Oh my goodness.

 

[tgGodsway]

Is there some reason you believe God’s heart can only be heaven or eternal punishment? It wasn’t that way in the Old Testament.

not sure what you mean here.

 

[MT1926]

not sure what you mean here.

I was asking why you only give two options for the baby. It seems you say unless you ignore the fact that the milk was spilled then the only justice for the spilled milk is to paddle the baby for all eternity. You only give God two options. In the OT God’s justice included Abraham’s bosom were the righteous souls awaited the preaching of Christ. It’s my opinion God’s justice might still include something like this for children who die before being born anew. Is this fact? I don’t know the Bible doesn’t tell us. But it does tell us we must be born anew to enter heaven. And children aren’t yet born anew. From our talk so far this is until they are Baptized as Catholics or believe as reformed. That I do know.

I’m guessing you’re not going to like this option because it sounds to much like purgatory

 

[MT1926]

But I do know God shows mercy on the innocent. How do I know this? because He is pure in heart. He will not judge un-righteously. Does this mean I am testing God? Oh my goodness.

My comment was based on you bringing hell into the picture. It seemed you were saying His mercy has to be Heaven or He would be unrighteous in His judgement because the only other choice is Hell. If you were not saying His mercy would have to gaurentee these children heaven then I apologize as well.

 

[MT1926]

We are told in Acts 10:2 that Cornelius was “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.” An angel visits him declaring, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.” In Acts 10:22, Cornelius is described to Peter as “an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation.”

Sure I’ll agree that Cornelius had faith in God, but how is this proof that every single gentile that day had faith, not in God, but in the gospel message and repented? Which you said are both nonnegotiables for the Holy Spirit.

The Scriptures go out of their way to tell us that their hearts were already prepared for receiving the Good News and receiving Christ.

I Don’t agree. You’re reading that into the text. The most we can get from those words is they heard the stories of Jesus. To say Peter’s words here prove their hearts were ready would be saying anyone who even hears about Jesus is automatically ready.

As to not professing faith, they certainly did profess their faith. When the Holy Spirit fell, they began “extolling God.”

I have no problem with this. This is Catholic teaching a baby can receive the Holy Spirit first in Baptism and the Holy Spirit will strengthen them till their age of reason, so they are able to profess their faith after receiving the Spirit.

Whoa!!! We need to back up. The manifest presence of the Holy Spirit was not a sign for the Gentiles. It was a wake up call to the Jewish Christians.

Exactly, that is what I’ve been saying from the beginning, about Acts 10. It was a wake up call, from God, to the Jewish Christians to Baptize Gentiles. That is why God delivered the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles before a profession of faith, before repentance, and before they were a Baptized.

The promises of God? Isn’t that what faith is all about, trusting God with or without a sign. Yes, baptism is a wonderful sign and seal of the Gospel, but it is a sign and seal of faith.

Yes and Baptism is the water portion of Born of water and the Spirit. It doesn’t say born of faith and the Spirit, nor does it say repentance and the Spirit. I’m not saying these aren’t important I’m just pointing out Jesus made it simple for us. Get Baptized receive the Spirit, Amen.

 

[guanophore]

There is no contradiction. Prevenient grace does not bend the will. It enables the will to make the free choice to either cooperate with or resist grace. This cooperation does not contribute to salvation. It is simply non-resistance to grace. It is allowing grace to do its work by laying down all attempts at self-justification and self-purification and admitting that only Christ can save.

Therefore, Arminian theology does indeed uphold both total depravity and the possibility of resisting grace.

If a person cannot cooperate with grace unti they are regenerated (due to total depravity) then how can a “free choice” be made when the soul is still imprisoned by depravity? There is a logical inconsistency.

This same inconsistency exists with the idea that children are not condemed by virtue of orignal sin. Either orignial sin is fatal, or not. If it is not (for infants and children) then total depravity is false. We are not, in actuality, separated from the Love of God until we reach the “age of reason”, a concept not found in Scripture.

Justification, regeneration, adoption, sanctification–all of this is completely 100% the work of God. We cooperate by not getting in the way–and this is still via prevenient grace.

Yes, but you are saying that the will is “free” to accept or reject prior to justification, regeneration, adoption, and sanctification. YOu are asserting that there is some ability to cooperate with God’s grace while we are still totally depraved?

How is it that Cornelius engaged in act of faith while he was sill unregenerate?
1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly." Acts 10

Total depravity teaches that there is nothing in us that can please God. How is it that Cornelius’ actions were pleasing to God?

“The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.” 10;4

The Word seems to indicate that he believed before he ever heard the words of Corneluis.

 

[guanophore]

Honestly I am not sure what you are talking about. A child too young to know right from wrong has not sinned.

Perhaps you really don’t believe in original sin? If the entry of sin into the world did not condemn everyone to death, then children who have no personal sin are exempt from the effects of the fall?

Death that entered the world through Adam only applies to those who have reached the “age of reason”? Where is that in your bible?

If they die in this state they will be judged accordingly.

And what does Jesus say is according? "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. " John 3.

Jesus seems to say that death, which entered the world through Adam, applies to all human beings. The default condition of humanity is “condemned already”. So you are adding to the scriptures by saying “until the child has reaced the age of reason they are innocent and will go to heaven”.

Even Reformed scholars are able to acknowledge that Arminians do believe in total depravity. Robert A. Peterson and Michael Williams wrote in Why I Am Not An Arminian, p. 163:

Arminians and Calvinists alike believe in total depravity: because of the fall, every aspect of human nature is tainted by sin.

This just highlights the disconnect even more. We will agree that nothing unclean can enter heaven, and we will gree that every aspect of human nature is tinted by sin, yet you still hold on to the irreconcilable notion that children “below the age of reason” will go to heaven?

How does one reconcile Eph,2

"1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesha and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. "

Children are brought into the fallen world under the penalty of original sin. If we deny they are children of wrath, just because they may not have committed a personal sin, then the doctrine of original sin becomes unravelled. This was a problem never solved by Jacob Arminius.

http://www.dbts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/10_Aloisi_J_2016.pdf

He would have no power within himself to choose good or even know good. Prevenient grace provides both the incentive to follow the good, the knowledge of the good, and the power to choose for the good.

Yes, all this work of grace precedes regeneration…

 

[ltwin]

If a person cannot cooperate with grace unti they are regenerated (due to total depravity) then how can a “free choice” be made when the soul is still imprisoned by depravity? There is a logical inconsistency.

Prevenient grace is regenerative. We could describe this grace as calling, convicting, illuminating, and enabling. It is the grace that Jesus spoke of in John 6:44. Repentance and faith are produced in the sinner by God’s Spirit, and the person must receive and not resist this grace.

Yes, but you are saying that the will is “free” to accept or reject prior to justification, regeneration, adoption, and sanctification. YOu are asserting that there is some ability to cooperate with God’s grace while we are still totally depraved?

No. In the depraved state, the will is in bondage to sin. Arminians don’t believe in free will as much as we believe in freed will. Because of the fall, human will is bound by sin. Prevenient grace enables the will to respond freely to the message of the Gospel.

Total depravity teaches that there is nothing in us that can please God. How is it that Cornelius’ actions were pleasing to God?

Obviously, God’s grace was already at work within him.

 

[ltwin]

This same inconsistency exists with the idea that children are not condemed by virtue of orignal sin. Either orignial sin is fatal, or not. If it is not (for infants and children) then total depravity is false. We are not, in actuality, separated from the Love of God until we reach the “age of reason”, a concept not found in Scripture.

Original sin is true, but the power of Christ and his justice and mercy are also true. Infants and others who die without the knowledge of good and evil and of God (either through nature or revelation) are not “without excuse.” God is sovereign, and he is able to apply the saving benefits of Christ’s atonement by his grace to these souls.

This just highlights the disconnect even more. We will agree that nothing unclean can enter heaven, and we will gree that every aspect of human nature is tinted by sin, yet you still hold on to the irreconcilable notion that children “below the age of reason” will go to heaven?

What I believe is that God, in his sovereignty, acts by his grace to regenerate and to save infants (and others who are incapable of moral discernment) who die. This is not because they are not tainted by original sin. They are. This is because he heals and restores their souls by his grace, allowing them to enter God’s presence pure and holy.

How does one reconcile Eph,2

"1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesha and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. "

Children are brought into the fallen world under the penalty of original sin. If we deny they are children of wrath, just because they may not have committed a personal sin, then the doctrine of original sin becomes unravelled. This was a problem never solved by Jacob Arminius.

The doctrine of original sin does not unravel simply by believing that God chooses to cover and cleanse deceased infants with the blood of Christ. Christ has made satisfaction for those who never had an opportunity to even conceive of God let alone disobedience.

 

[guanophore]

Prevenient grace is regenerative.

OIC. At what point did Cornelius and his household receive prevenient grace?

In the depraved state, the will is in bondage to sin. Arminians don’t believe in free will as much as we believe in freed will. Because of the fall, human will is bound by sin. Prevenient grace enables the will to respond freely to the message of the Gospel.

Sounds very Catholic!

Original sin is true, but the power of Christ and his justice and mercy are also true. Infants and others who die without the knowledge of good and evil and of God (either through nature or revelation) are not “without excuse.” God is sovereign, and he is able to apply the saving benefits of Christ’s atonement by his grace to these souls.

Certiainly, He is able. But He was also able to do that without dying on the cross.

If the natural state of human beings is to be born in separation from fellowship with God, how can we then say that this state does not exist in humans from the time of conception? otherwise what wouldl be the point of baptizing infants and children?

The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call." Acts2

The word used here for children/offspring is teknois. This is the same word used in Luke when the arrival of the Magi are described finding the teknon Jesus in the house. It is usually used of a toddler. This is also why Herod slew all those boys in Bethlehem two years of age and younger. I know those who espouse "believers baptism’ will say this verse just refers to the descendants of the hearers (once they reach the age of reason), but the language is very specifically referring to young offspring around the age of 2 and younger.

 

[ltwin]

If the natural state of human beings is to be born in separation from fellowship with God, how can we then say that this state does not exist in humans from the time of conception

I didn’t say that. I’ve said exactly the opposite. God is able to regenerate infants who die by his grace apart from anything they do or can do.