Astronomer wrote:A question: Jesus died. Does that mean he sinned? Or is it different since he was murdered, rather than died of natural causes?
Great question. Jesus died because He was bearing the sins of His people--you and me and all Christians. We are all born sinful and commit sins, therefore, when our sinfulness was put on Him, He received the "wages" of sin--death.
Sherlock wrote:I agree that we all inherited the sin of Adam (often referred to as the first sin or "original sin"). So no issue there. However, I believe that God created Adam good, which is to say that I believe that we also inherited that from Adam too. So, while I disagree with Luther's belief that we are born as depraved, worthless pieces of dung, I would say that we, like Adam, were created by God as ultimately good (In Genesis, we are told that God looked at His creation and saw that it was good), but that because of Adam's choice to sin, we all inherited the fallen nature of Adam, the predisposition towards sinfulness as well as the consequences of that sin (death). That is why I say that we are born into this world good but fallen creatures. We are good because God created the human race as good, but we are fallen because we inherited the original sin of Adam.
I actually think I agree with almost all of this. I wouldn't use the word "good" to describe our inherent nature, just because the Bible says that no one is good or does good, but I would agree that we, as the special creation of God, retain His image and likeness, and also some sense of innate value to Him.
Sherlock wrote:Now, how does Baptism play into this? I believe that Baptism was instituted by Christ to remove the supernatural stain of original sin, though the natural effects (predisposition towards sinfulness and death) still remain. But because of Baptism, we are no longer "cast out of the Garden of Eden" so to speak, and God welcomes us into His family, and bestows special graces upon us to resist our sinful tendencies. Baptism is an outward sign of a choice to reject our sinful tendencies and work towards being a faithful child of God.
Well, whether or not you expected it, I definitely disagree with you about baptism. Except your last sentence. I don't believe baptism plays any part in our salvation. One can be saved and die and go to heaven without ever being baptized. Salvation consists of repentance and faith. So I don't see it as a problem that miscarried babies cannot be baptized. I do certainly believe it is a means of grace, by which we are filled with assurance and boldness in our faith. But it's not anything more than, like you said, an outward sign to others of our union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, our repentance and our resolve to follow Christ daily.
Sherlock wrote:Well, first, to clarify, my purpose here isn't to attack you, it is merely to challenge some points and gain clarity about where we differ.
Well, my comment wasn't meant to be taken quite so literally. But I expected you to have a vastly different opinion than I, so I expected a full-blown attack against my argument. I'm glad you at least agree in part.
Sherlock wrote:Note, I did not say that I believed miscarried/aborted babies go to Heaven. My issue was with the presupposition that they go to heck, based on what I know and believe about God's mercy. To caveat what I am about to say, I have absolutely no idea what happens to these people when they die, I can only speculate and my speculations, again, are based on what I know and believe about how God offers his mercy and graces to the human race.
No, I wasn't trying to say that you said that. I was merely stating that it's pretty common for people to hope that the infants do go to heaven. It's just that most people don't really think about the theological implications of that belief. But I am confused about your comment that all of this is speculation. I don't think much of it is speculation, because most of it can be directly learned from Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture is it indicated that God gives people some kind of "second chance" after death. Life is their chance. If He doesn't give them the faith to believe, then they go to heck. And they go justly. And we only see one means of salvation in Scripture: repentance and faith. Thus, if babies are saved, they must be given the ability to repent and believe.
Sherlock wrote:Most churches (it sounds like yours is included) have some speculation about what happens. It sounds like in your case, you are saying that you believe that God basically "handpicks" certain individuals "born or unborn" who are members of the Elect who will be offered the chance to repent and be saved. Interestingly, it sounds like you believe that God may offer some people this chance before they are born. To some extent, I agree with you and this is what I was referring to when I mentioned "non-traditional" means of salvation.
I'm not saying that God only gives certain people the chance to repent and believe. I think everyone has the "chance" to believe. The gospel is for everyone. But only those to whom He gives a new heart will be able to repent and believe, and thus be saved. It's not really a "non-traditional" means of salvation that I'm trying to suggest, but it's the same old "repent and believe," just applied to infants who never see the light of day.
Sherlock wrote:My view on this is that,
1) God offers every human being the chance to accept or reject him. I believe this to be true based on my understanding of God's justice and mercy (He is infinitely Just and also infinitely Merciful), and
2) It is impossible for some (namely the unborn and, in some cases, the severely mentally handicapped) to consciously make this choice, therefore the choice must be offered at some other time, not necessarily while the person is alive on this earth. All of this is pure speculation, but it is possible that these unborn children and others are given the Gospel at some point, and are also given the chance to choose to accept God or reject him after hearing it.
Now, the biggest hole in my reasoning (you may have picked it out already) is that this explanation doesn't account for Baptism. And, if you believe as I do, you would say that Baptism is absolutely necessary to remove the eternal stain of original sin. Quite frankly, I don't have an explanation for this, though many throughout the years have come up with various solutions, including Limbo and other things. These are all speculative and I have no real opinion on them, since we ultimately don't know one way or another.
I wouldn't disagree with you entirely. The very fact that salvation is offered is a testimony of God's love and mercy to all. But as a result of our fallenness, we are unable to repent and believe of ourselves, because of our corrupt hearts. He must give us a new heart before we can be saved. And I believe that only those to whom He gives this new heart will be saved, and them alone. All others will go to heck, which they deserve; and we'll go to Heaven, which we by no means deserve. He is infinitely merciful and gracious. But He is not obligated to be those things. Otherwise, no one would end up in heck; but He does pour out His wrath and His justice on some, and they, rejecting His offer of salvation, justly go to heck.
But with the baptism issue I must disagree. Baptism is not necessary for salvation in the least, as I see it. So it's not a problem to me that dead babies don't get baptized.