Doctrine of Children?

[Major]

Yes, but you are spreading that LIKENESS over into the realm of automatic salvation for children, and that is not at all what Jesus said. He was pointing at the character of children. Nowhere did He say that they are sinless! If you believe they were ever declared sinless in scripture, then please show that to us.



Wait a minute! I never said anything about being totally depraved. I have spoken ONLY to the fact of the sin nature being within ALL of humanity, including babies and children. The sin nature is the means by which any one of us sins. If we did not have the sin nature within us at conception, as was the case with Jesus, then we would have been able to live a sinless life as did Jesus, and therefore have no need for His shed Blood.

Now, can you show us where scripture declares what you seem to be saying, in that babies and children are born sinless, because I have shown to you in Psalm 51 that such a belief is wrong?

MM

Since Jesus said in John 9:41........ “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin…” and since James said in 4:17......“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin”........ does it seem to you that infants are, therefore, morally innocent.

Personally, I think that this is because they don’t yet know right from wrong and they cannot yet know right from wrong.

 

[Major]

Correct. It has to be knowingly, wilful, and deliberate sin.
.

Nope!

Those who reject Jesus and His gospel in ignorance must accept Him in repentance in order to receive forgiveness of their sins. Jesus made this abundantly clear in John 14:6.......
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.

That means It doesn’t matter whether someone misses the way because of ignorance or because of willful rebellion—or willfully sins or not knowingly sins, he has still missed the way.

People are not as ignorant as they may claim, however. No one can be utterly ignorant of God, and no one has an excuse to live in disobedience. The apostle Paul said in Romans 1:18-20.......
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse”.

 

[bobinfaith]

Hello brothers and sisters;

I have a question. Since most of you have children how did you introduce them to the doctrine of children and at what age?

I feel this is important for many parents who wouldn’t know where to start, teaching their little ones.

God bless you all and thank you.

Bob in faith

 

[Major]

Hello brothers and sisters;

I have a question. Since most of you have children how did you introduce them to the doctrine of children and at what age?

I feel this is important for many parents who wouldn’t know where to start, teaching their little ones.

God bless you all and thank you.

Bob in faith

Well for me.....our children were in Sunday School from their birth. As they grew they learned and learned. Following their mother, they were naturally smart !!!

Children are never too young to learn.

 

[Musicmaster]

Since Jesus said in John 9:41........ “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin…” and since James said in 4:17......“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin”........ does it seem to you that infants are, therefore, morally innocent.

Personally, I think that this is because they don’t yet know right from wrong and they cannot yet know right from wrong.

In the original languages, both Hebrew and Greek, there are jots and tittles in the manuscripts that give deeper meaning to the words translated more simply into English. Here is the Greek from Thayer's Greek Lexicon translated as "sin" in that verse you quoted:

ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν to have sin as though it were one's odious private property, or to have done something needing expiation, equivalent to to have committed sin, John 9:41

This, again, hits upon the difference between the commission of sin versus the inherent sin nature that we all inherited at conception, as I had demonstrated from Psalm 51. We have to ask ourselves if it was Jesus' message that all blind people are free from all sin? I'm sure we can both agree that such was not at all what He was saying. The context of that verse gives us no reason to believe what would seem logical with the verse sitting outside of its context.

The context is targeted at the Pharisees and the fact that they saw Him and the things that He had done. Their sin of rejection cannot, then, be laid to rest on the basis of blindness because they saw many things that He had done by the power of God, and still rejected Him. In other words, their blindness was intentional disregard, and yet they are guilty regardless, on the basis of their sight.

Does that all sound academic? Hmm, perhaps. The transition Jesus made when talking to a man who had literally been blind, and then to the Pharisees who were willfully bind, that's an interesting mix that Jesus employed in His dissertation to the religious elite.

MM

 

[Major]

In the original languages, both Hebrew and Greek, there are jots and tittles in the manuscripts that give deeper meaning to the words translated more simply into English. Here is the Greek from Thayer's Greek Lexicon translated as "sin" in that verse you quoted:

ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν to have sin as though it were one's odious private property, or to have done something needing expiation, equivalent to to have committed sin, John 9:41

This, again, hits upon the difference between the commission of sin versus the inherent sin nature that we all inherited at conception, as I had demonstrated from Psalm 51. We have to ask ourselves if it was Jesus' message that all blind people are free from all sin? I'm sure we can both agree that such was not at all what He was saying. The context of that verse gives us no reason to believe what would seem logical with the verse sitting outside of its context.

The context is targeted at the Pharisees and the fact that they saw Him and the things that He had done. Their sin of rejection cannot, then, be laid to rest on the basis of blindness because they saw many things that He had done by the power of God, and still rejected Him. In other words, their blindness was intentional disregard, and yet they are guilty regardless, on the basis of their sight.

Does that all sound academic? Hmm, perhaps. The transition Jesus made when talking to a man who had literally been blind, and then to the Pharisees who were willfully bind, that's an interesting mix that Jesus employed in His dissertation to the religious elite.

MM

Academic??? No. Spiritually induced....Yes!

So, I would say that in John 9:41 when Jesus indicated that His ministry was meant to give spiritual sight to those who sought it, and reveal spiritual blindness to those who thought they were wise, the Pharisees responded with arrogance.
Their response, in essence, was to say, "who us, you obviously aren't saying we're spiritually blind."

So here Jesus clarifies: this is exactly what He's saying.

Further, Jesus' statement here underscores an important principle, which is that God holds people accountable only for what they know, but holds them absolutely accountable for it.

 

[Musicmaster]

There's a ministry (No Greater Joy) with which I have been acquainted for many years. The fella who ministers and runs it had this to say, "Romans 4:15 says, 'Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.' No child is in transgression. No infant—no child—has disobeyed the laws of God and is guilty before God and damned because of their personal sin. (https://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/what-happens-to-children-when-the-rapture-takes-place/)

This is a great explanation as to why I disagree with the idea that babies and children are lost in eternity. The decision as to placing one's sin upon the cross, or to hold on to their sin and try to atone for them all on their own...that is the point of when their name is either found or not found in the Lamb's Book of Life.

I didn't even know he believed what I have been saying about this topic, "Now I’m going to give you my opinion. Now, this is my opinion: I think probably one of the main reasons for the Millennium is going to be so that babies and children and mentally disabled who died before accountability can grow to maturity during that thousand-year reign of Christ and be accountable just as you and I are accountable in a natural way, having come to understand the law, being faced with Jesus Christ personally, and being responsible and held accountable for their lives. I think that’s going to happen in the Millennium. I can’t prove it, but I have another passage that hints at something like that."
(https://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/what-happens-to-children-when-the-rapture-takes-place/)

Until just Friday, I was not aware of his thoughts about this, but it's interesting that the application of a systematic application of so many things revealed within scripture can lead to the conclusion reached in this thread, in that babies, young children, and, yes, perhaps even the mentally incapacitated, will all be functional and normal so that they too will reach the point of accountability, as we all have in this realm, and thus fulfill the perfect justice of the Most High.

That's not to say that they will be reset and distanced from the influences of the godly parents they had before passing from the pre-Millennium life within which they had not been able to reach that point. The crack babies, for example, who entered this life mentally maimed because of uncaring and unloving parents, and who therefore died or were mentally damaged as a result, perhaps they will be given that choice for or against Christ in the Millennium.

This topic may indeed be a source of painful reading for some when thinking about their baby/child who had passed before, and who may be required to face that point of decision, but that should not be a reason for consternation and pain. In relation to the suggestions within this topic, I'm not removing them from Heaven if they are not actually there as of yet, I'm simply positing the possibility that they too will be afforded the same decision point through which all the rest of humanity had to pass in order to reach that most important decision point in life, just as all Israel had to pass through the Red Sea parting in order to reach safety on the other side, which scripture describes as a sort of "baptism" as I recall.

In other words, I do not see it as an injustice for that massive number of babies, children and mentally damaged being required to make that choice. It cannot be said that environment is the only factor as to why most reject Christ, and only some embrace His offer of salvation. Something I noticed is how different my four boys were in relation to each other in the arena of personality. They differed greatly, and still do. How that plays into all this I cannot say, but it does bolster confidence in the Lord's economy of perfect justice to think that all will be held to account for the decision they made in this life, whether it be before or after the starting point of the Millennial Kingdom. This scenario provides for ALL to reach that point, and therefore completing the separating out the goats from the sheep.

MM

 

[Major]

One other thing I will say in relation to the reincarnation idea, if God brings them back into life on this earth through being born to parents in the Millennium, that clearly is not at all akin to the conceptualized reincarnation of paganism. They are ideas that are virtually polar opposites, and do not at all share in the purpose nor drive between the two systems of thought.

MM

The Bible in NO place I know of teaches reincarnation of any kind. Resurrrection is what the Bible teaches.

 

[Major]

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. HEB. 9:27-28

Bringing them alive again in the millenium would require them to die a second time and a third after the judgement. While I don't pretend to know what God has planned for "innocents" I must believe He does have a plan just the same. I disagree with your two groupings idea, the goat has no choice but to be a goat as it was created as such, whereas we all have a choice to make. When do these "innocents" get to make that choice is unknown, but, I agree that it must be made at some point.

I agree!

Consider what Jesus says in John 9:41 to those who were offended at his teaching and asked if he thought they were blind-he said......
"If you were blind, you would not have had sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."

In other words, if a person lacks the natural capacity to see the revelation of God's will or God's glory then that person's sin would not remain-God would not bring the person into final judgment for not believing what he had no natural capacity to see.

 

[Musicmaster]

The Bible in NO place I know of teaches reincarnation of any kind. Resurrrection is what the Bible teaches.

I agree. The pagan concept of reincarnation is indeed repugnant at its root, and it's not biblical. That's why I have never suggested such a thing in relation to babies, children and mentally handicapped in relation to the Millennium. Anyone who would subscribe to that concept would be poisoning the well of doctrinal purity. That would be like saying that Lazrus was reincarnated, or that any of the others were reincarnated. Nope. Not at all in my thinking. If/When God brings back the babies, children and mentally handicapped in the Millennium, that will be my a means of His own Sovereign choosing, which will have nothing to do with any universal concept of reincarnation.

This brings up another parallel...where it's appointed unto men to die once...there are some exceptions to that as well. Lazarus died a second physical death, as did the little girl Jesus raised, and little boy Elijah raised, etc. So, dare we apply the appointment applied to the word in general, to rule out exceptions would be to deny what scripture actually offers in the lives of some whom the Lord used as exceptions of His own choosing.

Thanks for that, Major.

MM

 

[Major]

I agree. The pagan concept of reincarnation is indeed repugnant at its root, and it's not biblical. That's why I have never suggested such a thing in relation to babies, children and mentally handicapped in relation to the Millennium. Anyone who would subscribe to that concept would be poisoning the well of doctrinal purity. That would be like saying that Lazrus was reincarnated, or that any of the others were reincarnated. Nope. Not at all in my thinking. If/When God brings back the babies, children and mentally handicapped in the Millennium, that will be my a means of His own Sovereign choosing, which will have nothing to do with any universal concept of reincarnation.

This brings up another parallel...where it's appointed unto men to die once...there are some exceptions to that as well. Lazarus died a second physical death, as did the little girl Jesus raised, and little boy Elijah raised, etc. So, dare we apply the appointment applied to the word in general, to rule out exceptions would be to deny what scripture actually offers in the lives of some whom the Lord used as exceptions of His own choosing.

Thanks for that, Major.

MM

In the context of Hebrews 9:27 which you used, the writer is also making a point about the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. His point is that the sacrifice offered by Jesus is not like that of the old covenant. Animal sacrifices had to be offered repeatedly, since they could not perfectly atone for sin. Christ was able to offer a single, "once for all" sacrifice which absolutely covered the payment required for humanity's salvation.

Between verses 27 and 28, the point is that Christ's first appearance, leading to His death, was for the purpose of judgment of sin. Sin was judged on the cross, by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. When Christ comes again, in the future, His arrival will not be for the purpose of atoning for sin. Instead, it will be to apply what has already been accomplished, and to usher in the final judgment. Just as man's one death leads to judgment, so too does Christ's one death lead to judgment—but for men, rather than for Jesus.

 

[Musicmaster]

In the context of Hebrews 9:27 which you used, the writer is also making a point about the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. His point is that the sacrifice offered by Jesus is not like that of the old covenant. Animal sacrifices had to be offered repeatedly, since they could not perfectly atone for sin. Christ was able to offer a single, "once for all" sacrifice which absolutely covered the payment required for humanity's salvation.

Between verses 27 and 28, the point is that Christ's first appearance, leading to His death, was for the purpose of judgment of sin. Sin was judged on the cross, by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. When Christ comes again, in the future, His arrival will not be for the purpose of atoning for sin. Instead, it will be to apply what has already been accomplished, and to usher in the final judgment. Just as man's one death leads to judgment, so too does Christ's one death lead to judgment—but for men, rather than for Jesus.

I would interested to see your thoughts on those who were raised from the dead, and then died again, and how that relates to those who died without having had the opportunity to seek after, or reject, Christ.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

In Hebrews 9:27, we read, "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment..."

According to the Thayer's Greek Lexicon, that can also be translated as:

"And it awaits for men to die once, but after this the judgment..."

"b. metaphorically, with the dative of person, reserved for one, awaiting him: Colossians 1:5 (ἐλπίς hoped-for blessedness); 2 Timothy 4:8 (στέφανος); Hebrews 9:27 (ἀποθανεῖν..."

I can understand that confusion that can exist in the thinking of some who believe that where it states that something is "appointed," versus it saying that something "awaits" the general populace of all generations of mankind, that still leaves room for the Lord to step in and apply some exceptions, which He actually did in the life of a small number of individuals we are told about who were raised from the dead, only to die again later on.

It therefore, in my thought processes, is not outlandish to say that this also applies to those who were snuffed out, or incapable, to make the decision for or against seeking Christ for salvation from sin. Lazarus was not reincarnated, and neither does the Lord need to reincarnate all the others. After all, the body of Lazarus, as is stated in the text, had already begun to become corrupted given that he "stinketh" as the KJV states, and yet the Lord revived his body, and instructed that he be fed something for his stomach, if I recall correctly.

In the natural order of things for most of mankind, yes, death awaits us all, and then the judgement, but the Lord has already demonstrated His authority and prerogative to set forth exceptions.

We may also soon see many, many more exceptions to what generally awaits mankind...

MM

 

[Major]

I would interested to see your thoughts on those who were raised from the dead, and then died again, and how that relates to those who died without having had the opportunity to seek after, or reject, Christ.

MM

The act of raising the dead by Jesus was an example to demonstrate that Jesus was in fact he Messiah. I believe that there were 9 people raised from the dead in the Bible including Jesus.

Jesus’ resurrection is the first permanent return to life; everyone else who had been raised to life died again. Jesus rose, nevermore to die. In this way, Jesus is “the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep”.

Now...... all of those raised from the dead died again. They were not resurrected. We have no record in the Bible to say that they went to heaven in any resurrected body. They certainly do not exist on Earth today as millennia-old senior citizens! The only logical conclusion that I see is that these people died again.

 

[Musicmaster]

The act of raising the dead by Jesus was an example to demonstrate that Jesus was in fact he Messiah. I believe that there were 9 people raised from the dead in the Bible including Jesus.

Jesus’ resurrection is the first permanent return to life; everyone else who had been raised to life died again. Jesus rose, nevermore to die. In this way, Jesus is “the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep”.

Now...... all of those raised from the dead died again. They were not resurrected. We have no record in the Bible to say that they went to heaven in any resurrected body. They certainly do not exist on Earth today as millennia-old senior citizens! The only logical conclusion that I see is that these people died again.

Like you had pointed out, and with which I agree, we don't know many things about the young children, babies and mentally handicapped, who have long since departed, and who are being thrown out of life today, tomorrow, and beyond. Many unknowns, and yet I can't find very much out there from ancient writers all the way to contemporary writers who have ever really tried to grapple with this topic, except at that other ministry I mentioned above, called No Greater Joy. That fella is bold and pulls no punches on many things, especially in the responsibilities of fathers to their children and their wives.

MM

 

[Major]

Like you had pointed out, and with which I agree, we don't know many things about the young children, babies and mentally handicapped, who have long since departed, and who are being thrown out of life today, tomorrow, and beyond. Many unknowns, and yet I can't find very much out there from ancient writers all the way to contemporary writers who have ever really tried to grapple with this topic, except at that other ministry I mentioned above, called No Greater Joy. That fella is bold and pulls no punches on many things, especially in the responsibilities of fathers to their children and their wives.

MM

It is a very difficult subject to talk about brother. Most people do not want to even consider the ramifications.

I am not real sure I do either.

As I said.......having lost grandchild, I do not even consider anything other that God's acceptance.

 

[forgiven61]

Of course this is like water on a duck back - rolls right off. I will stake my ordination certificate to preach. Babies go to heaven

 

[Musicmaster]

It is a very difficult subject to talk about brother. Most people do not want to even consider the ramifications.

I am not real sure I do either.

As I said.......having lost grandchild, I do not even consider anything other that God's acceptance.

Thanks, Major. Believe me when I state that I knew this would be a hard one for others to even consider.

You see, this is a great topic for showing how easy it is for our flesh to try and rationalize a way around the new birth requirement for anyone to enter Heaven. The Lord never, at any time, even hinted at such a concept of avoidance, and yet our emotions so easily concoct all manner of things to satisfy our sadness at the thought that anyone we know MAY end up making the wrong decision if/when given that opportunity in the Millennium.

I'm sure we can both agree that there's no measure of injustice for the Lord to give all those people a chance to reach that point of decision in the Millennial Kingdom, every one of them, those whom He judges as not having had that chance in their lives before His Second Coming.

There is another step to this very topic that gets even more profound, and would absolutely violate the sensibilities of even more, so I will withhold that in open discussion areas. We aren't very far away from that step becoming reality, but will leave it at this point without going further. The subjective threshold for what some may have set up in their own thinking as to what they define as cruel.

Suffice it to say that had Solomon considered babies to be sinlessly perfect enough to get around the necessity for the blood of sacrifices and the Blood of Christ in relation to actually making that decision, he would not ever have gone to the point of commanding that baby be divided in half between the two women. His order would very likely have been carried out had neither of them been the real mother...and therefore neither of them spoken up. Please forgive my bringing this item up, as if there had ever been that alternative, but it does show to us some of the deeper understanding of the ancients.

This also plays into the discussion about the purpose for the Lord allowing sin to enter the world. Sin is the test for ALL...to divide the sheep from the goats who chose/choose to not place the penalty for their sins upon Christ...not just those intentionally committed, but ALL sin given that we had sin infused into us from conception from our earthly father's seed.

Thanks, Major.

MM

 

[Major]

Thanks, Major. Believe me when I state that I knew this would be a hard one for others to even consider.

You see, this is a great topic for showing how easy it is for our flesh to try and rationalize a way around the new birth requirement for anyone to enter Heaven. The Lord never, at any time, even hinted at such a concept of avoidance, and yet our emotions so easily concoct all manner of things to satisfy our sadness at the thought that anyone we know MAY end up making the wrong decision if/when given that opportunity in the Millennium.

I'm sure we can both agree that there's no measure of injustice for the Lord to give all those people a chance to reach that point of decision in the Millennial Kingdom, every one of them, those whom He judges as not having had that chance in their lives before His Second Coming.

There is another step to this very topic that gets even more profound, and would absolutely violate the sensibilities of even more, so I will withhold that in open discussion areas. We aren't very far away from that step becoming reality, but will leave it at this point without going further. The subjective threshold for what some may have set up in their own thinking as to what they define as cruel.

Suffice it to say that had Solomon considered babies to be sinlessly perfect enough to get around the necessity for the blood of sacrifices and the Blood of Christ in relation to actually making that decision, he would not ever have gone to the point of commanding that baby be divided in half between the two women. His order would very likely have been carried out had neither of them been the real mother...and therefore neither of them spoken up. Please forgive my bringing this item up, as if there had ever been that alternative, but it does show to us some of the deeper understanding of the ancients.

This also plays into the discussion about the purpose for the Lord allowing sin to enter the world. Sin is the test for ALL...to divide the sheep from the goats who chose/choose to not place the penalty for their sins upon Christ...not just those intentionally committed, but ALL sin given that we had sin infused into us from conception from our earthly father's seed.

Thanks, Major.

MM

Bringing up difficult issues is no problem for me brother. I have had to talk and counsel for years on hard topics.

I wish that we could discuss more sensitive topics here, but I also know how emotional people get when they do not "get their way"! Some people just can not discuss anything without anger creeping in.

IMHO the tree God told Adam to not eat from was a "TEST". We know everything in the Garden was good because God made it.

Adam and Eve were not ignorant and they knew God's boundaries.
Just as wise teachers test their students, God tested Adam and Eve in their obedience. However, God didn’t test them on what they didn’t know. They knew which tree was off limits, and they knew the consequences if they ate from it. The rules were plain, but Adam and Eve violated them anyway.

God’s wise, good plan included sending his Son into the world that Adam and Eve ruined. Think about it:........
from eternity past God ordained that he would become the chief victim of his own plan and The very good news is that he also guaranteed our redemption by his resurrection.