Debates...

Finding Truth Matters offers an exciting range of apologetic material that challenges hearts and minds.

 

On 26/05/2006, at 8:37 AM, Mark B. wrote:

Hi Andrew

I’m doing some research on the subject of Original Sin and whether children of the unsaved go to Paradise if they die before the ‘age of accountability?’

What are your thoughts? Have you done any work on the subject or do you have any good books on the subject?

See the bottom of this email the response I got from Steve Fogarty the Principal of Southern Cross. My response to his response is below.

Bless ya mate

Mark

Hi Mark.
You've given this some good thought and research.
I have contemplated this previously.
Don Richardson has a chapter on this subject in his latest book- THE SECRETS OF THE KORAN. I now that sounds like a strange place to find a discussion on this topic. But its in the context of who's winning the war for souls: Islam or Christianity. I'm not sure that I agree with Richardson's argument, but its worth being aware of.
Secondly, I think you've surmised Finney's erroneous teaching on this topic eruditely. His Semi-Pelagian theology must now be regarded as potentially heretical if not at least unhealthy. Romans 5:14 seems to suggest that Adam's headship of the human race introduced sin to all. So, I don't think that the question of "original sin" is actually up for debate. What you're really trying to grapple with is a separate issue: which children are sanctified without making a conscious and public commitment to Christ? Clearly, Scripture indicates that (some) children are sanctified (redeemed). Therefore the issue isn't original sin.

The contribution that some of these couples have made to you seems to have some merit. If all children are automatically sanctified, then why are we vehemently opposed to abortion (if it truly is the most successful form of evangelism we have available?). I don't see this taught in Scripture- as one of these couples have pointed out to you, noting the reference to "unclean". Secondly, the statement children of the elect are sanctified, presumably equates to- elect children are sanctified- is again perhaps not really the issue. What is the central issue is the pastoral/homiletic approach-

* Should we assure a grieving couple that their unborn or newly born baby is "with God"?
* Can we categorically declare that children born in universal sin are damned by God for eternity?

My take on this mystery is to be as pastorally sensitive as possible to a grieving couple by ensuring that I am not papal in any of my decrees to them about their baby.

Hope this adds to your considerations.

Regards,

Andrew Corbett
____________

<From Mark B. to "S.F.">

Hi S.F.,

Thanks so much for your prompt reply.

I’ve held the same position as yourself but I have recently been challenged by some ex-Anglicans who were horrified at the thought of ‘heathen’s children’ going to Paradise. Their key proof text was 1Cor 7:14 – especially the statement ‘else your children are unclean.’ I can hardly find two commentators that agree on the interpretation of this particular verse but do agree with Robinson. (Quote below)

Robinson’s Word Pictures: Is sanctified in the wife (hgiastai en thi gunaiki). Perfect passive indicative of agiazw, to set apart, to hallow, to sanctify. Paul does not, of course, mean that the unbelieving husband is saved by the faith of the believing wife, though Hodge actually so interprets him. Clearly he only means that the marriage relation is sanctified so that there is no need of a divorce. If either husband or wife is a believer and the other agrees to remain, the marriage is holy and need not be set aside. This is so simple that one wonders at the ability of men to get confused over Paul's language. Else were your children unclean (epei ara ta tekna akayarta). The common ellipse of the condition with epei: "since, accordingly, if it is otherwise, your children are illegitimate (akayarta)." If the relations of the parents be holy, the child's birth must be holy also (not illegitimate). "He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent would be baptized; that would spoil rather than help his argument, for it would imply that the child was not agiov till it was baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism" (Robertson and Plummer).

I have recently been challenged by another couple that I went to college with on the same subject. (They attend Northside in Brisbane) They vehemently believe it is only the ‘elect’s children’ that are under the covenant and that all other children - due to the ‘hamartia’ - go to hell and are rejected by God. They were horrified that I took the position that all children go to Paradise. Obviously, Augustine’s doctrine on Original Sin, (Calvin & classic Evangelical Theology also?) has had a major influence on the Christian church at large.

Steve, do you have Biblical justification for your statement below? Have you written anything on the subject? Is there any good source for solid theological proof? Steve, how do you normally explain ‘original sin’ and the sin nature in relation to ‘sin’ that God judges? Do you believe in Physical Depravity and Moral Depravity?

I have usually used as my justification for children not receiving judgement: 1King 14:12,13; 2Sam 12:23; Mat 2:22; Mat 18:3; Mat 19:14; Act 17:30; Rom 2:14,15,16.

I have Charles G. Finney’s Theology and don’t agree with his Moral Government theory, which states that all children are born without a sin nature but all finally sin due to Satan’s influence in the world and the sinfulness of their parents. In this view the driving factor for sinning is the environment and those in that environment who’ve succumbed to sinfulness.

I’ve just gone through the Enchiridion by Augustine and copied his teaching on Original Sin and the need for Child Baptism. I’ve copied it to a Word doc if you’re interested. Are you familiar with Zwingli’s position on Original Sin etc? He certainly was ahead of his time but he was overshadowed by Luther and Calvin, both strong ‘original sin and infant baptism’ adherents.

Thanks again

______

On 24/5/06 5:41 PM, "S. F." wrote:

No, the concept of original sin should be taken as referring to an inherent human orientation away from God which will manifest itself in every human life (Jesus excepted) as sinful action. Such sinful action can only be perpetrated by a conscious rational and moral being. We generally refer to the threshold to such state as being the age of accountability. Having committed such an act one is then morally accountable – i.e. a sinner with its concomitant consequences. Steve

In defence of Christianity

Classic Theology

Contemporary Issues Facing Christians

Comparative Religions

Devotional Inklings

Biblical Debates

CS Lewis

 

 

Email-
mail@findingtruthmatters.org