<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. S.F.
