Warthur

There's actually a quota for the cosmic prison camp?

How Stalinist.

jbernier

In all fairness, that is not exactly what Rev. Muse said. Rather he said that that would be the logical consequence of Mageth's reasoning. The problem is, though, that Mageth was talking about the logical consequence of Rev. Muse's reasoning so, in effect, this is the logical consequence of Rev. Muse's reasoning.

jbernier

Uhmmm...huh? Isaiah is not Paul. How does quoting Isaiah say anything about what Paul taught? Either way, capitalizations notwithstanding, this only establishing someone suffering as the result of someone else's actions; it does not say one word about "Federal Headship." And says nothing about Adam.

Again, does not establish "Federal Headship", merely suggests that Christ, in some sense, is the head of the church. Again, says nothing about Adam.

Again, what does this say about "Federal Headship"? Or Adam?

This merely says that somehow God chose his people to be holy and blameless in Christ. It does not say anything about how we inherited sin. It says that we are in him and that all things are gathered together under one head. It does not say that our flesh is putatively as one with both Adam and Christ, as "Federal Headship" requires.

Either way, merely proof-texting - without exegesis - is not, well, exegesis. You need to do better than this if you wish to convince me that Paul taught a doctrine of "Federal Headship." Some sort of argumentation is necessary. And, for heaven's sake, you can't go quoting from Isaiah to prove what Paul was trying to say (unless you intend to demonstrate that Paul was drawing upon or citing the Isaiah text - but, again, you actually have to do exegesis and make an argument to do so).

jbernier

And the A+B+C group may reject the A+B group while embracing the A+D+E group, who can't stand either of them. Then you get the groups was says that A+B+C=Y, not X; of course the A+B+C=X people won't like them. And don't get me started about the A-B=Z guys. They're a wild bunch, those A-B=Z types.

You are right: Religion is much more complicated than mathematics, insofar as there are pretty much no obviously correct statements.

jbernier

Oh, Magus, you did not say that. Oh, the Pandora's Box you have just opened. This is one of my absolute favourite logically absurd arguments to rip to shreds.

So, here is what your argument looks like:

We are all born under the penalty of sin.
Therefore we all go to hell when we die.
However a baby is under the age of accountability.
Therefore the baby is not accountable for his or her sin.
Consequently a baby who dies at this point will go to heaven.
The only way to get to heaven is through the grace of God.
At some point the baby will become accountable.
At that point the sin which the baby was born with will result in that baby going to hell.
From then on salvation can only occur through acceptance of Christ Jesus.

First problem: You obviously do not believe in that classical evangelical doctrine of eternal security. Why? Because in this model the child goes from being in a spiritual state which would result in him or her going to heaven to a state which would result in the child going to hell.

Second problem: A corollary of the first. Evangelicals have always argued that one cannot earn salvation. In this model, however, one can earn un-salvation. One is in an identical state as the adult "saved" individual, insofar as eternal destination goes. Thus, although one cannot achieve salvation by one's own merit one can lose salvation by one's own demerits. This, then, is an anti-grace, in the purest sense of the prefix "anti-."

Third problem: If the sin with which the baby was born is that which condemns him or her to hell then why does accountability matter at all? We are not actually condemned by original sin, then, but by our own actions. The question of original sin becomes irrelevant.

Fourth problem: This suggests salvation outside of Christ. If salvation for the adult comes through acceptance of Christ Jesus and the baby cannot accept Christ Jesus yet is saved then the baby is saved outside of Christ Jesus.

Shall I go on? I'm just getting started.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

In Romans 5:18, it is written "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men..." It doesn't require much exegesis, if Adam's trespass resulted in condemnation for all men, there is a direct relationship between him and those affected by his action. Clearly, this must a representative (or federal) relationship. In the same way, in Rom 5:19 says "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Here again, the principle of the obedience of ONE man resulting in the righteousness of those Scripture describes as being "in him" points to a federal relationship.

As far as quoting Isaiah to support Paul, I have no problem with. There is a unity about the Scripture that allows for scripture interpreting scripture as profitable hermeneutical method. As one wisely put it, in the Old Testament, we find the New Testament concealed, and in the New Testament, we find the Old Testament revealed.

Magus55

I think your premises are all wrong. I don't think a baby goes to Hell, because It doesn't have the ability to know what its being judged on, and why it needs Jesus as its Savior. How can you expect a baby to be held accountable for sin, when it doesn't know what it means? And this is a Jewish concept, since a Jew becomes an adult around 13, which is why they have a Bar/Bat mitzvah.

I think in the case of babies or young children, Jesus automatically covers their sins, since they can't consciously choose to accept or reject Him. They don't have the capacity. I believe in a loving and merciful God, and I don't consider sending 3 month olds to Hell for merely being born fitting of God.

Vorkosigan

Off to GRD, since no obvious tie to BCH

Mageth

I lack belief in said God and Jesus. Therefore, I can't consciously choose to accept or reject him either.

Umm, so merely having the capacity to make a conscious choice is enough to send one to Hell? The second a child reached the age where they have that capacity, they are automatically condemned to Hell unless they immediately "accept Jesus"? What if they've never heard of him, or lack belief in him, or have heard of him and even believe in him but have not "consciously chosen", even though they have reached a state of mental maturity when they have that capacity?

But that's the basic reason we're all condemned to hell - for being born human. The fact that you assume some minimum age or mental capacity below which God gives us a special exception doesn't free you from that problem.

Let's look at an example. Say there is a 10-year-old boy walking to school. Now, on the way, it just so happens that he reaches that magical "age of accountability"; one second he lacks the capacity to make the "conscious choice"; the next second, he has that capacity (if the "age of accountability" bit is true, then there must be some crossover instant like that in everyone's life). Unfortunately for that boy, a second after he crosses the accountability threshold, a truck veers off the road and runs him over, killing him instantly - before he's had a chance to make a conscious choice to accept Jesus. Doesn't really matter if he's ever heard of Jesus, or believes in Jesus or not.

Does that boy go to Hell? If so, how is that any more "fitting of God" than sending a 3-month old to Hell?

That example is extreme, assuming he dies a second after crossing the accountability threshold. Substitute in an hour, or a day, or a week, or a year - it doesn't matter, really. You're still faced with the same problem of justifying sending someone to Hell for not making their choice in a timely manner, when that person's life was cut short.

jbernier

But you just rearticulated exactly the same premises I listed above. Does that mean that your premises are all wrong.

So one can be saved apart from faith in Jesus?