T: Babies need a Savior because their salvation is dependent upon the faith of their parents, and without a Savior their parents could have no faith.
R: Tom, I don't know how many reasons you have already given for a baby needing a Savior, but you outdid yourself in that one.
If their salvation is dependent upon the faith of their parents, it's obvious that they need salvation in the first place. Why do they need salvation? Salvation from what?
T: From sin of course. As Waggoner stated, "sin is in every fiber of our being by nature."

A character is developed. There's not a lot of revelation on this subject. 3SM has some things, as I recall. I can share what makes sense to me.

If a baby would develop a character in harmony with the principles of heaven, God will take that child to heaven. In general, God will take anyone to heaven who would be happy there.

We all have sinful natures. We all need the grace of God. I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Good! Without a Savior, we couldn't live physically. DA 660 tells us, "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life." So even the wicked have a Savior. He's referred to as "The Savior of the world" or "The Savior of every man" (depending on the translation) a number of times. Of course, this isn't the same thing as *accepting* Christ as a personal Savior, so eternal life is not conferred through this.


This isn't possible. One cannot even exist without a Savior.

No. One could already be saved, but this doesn't imply one doesn't need a Savior.



Yes. We all need a Savior, even if we are saved.

Original Sin has to do with the idea that we incur *guilt* simply by having a sinful nature *irregardless of whether we sin or not*.

It seems again you're not understanding what Original Sin is. It is not having a sinful nature, which seems to be your thinking.

Yes, we all have sinned, and our sinful nature has played a hand in this. But his has nothing to do with Original Sin! Original Sin has to do with the idea that we incur *guilt* simply by having a sinful nature *irregardless of whether we sin or not*.

Even if a person never sinned, by virtue of having a sinful nature, he would still be guilty! I think this point is being missed.

From sin of course. As Waggoner stated, "sin is in every fiber of our being by nature." All human beings need grace. Babies are dependent upon their parents in this regard. 3SM discusses this.

Actually, in wading through Augustine's writings, this is one area that I think I somewhat understood.

A foundational idea is that a person either has righteousness or sin; he must have one, no more, no less. "Original sin" is simply the loss of "original righteousness." Adam was created righteous, but he lost that through disobedience. And because he did not have righteousness of his own, he could not pass it on to his posterity. Therefore, we do not have original righteousness. Or IOW, we have original sin.

The catholic solution to this is baptism, among other things. Augustine's solution was that righteousness must be given back to the sinner through the sacraments.

The problem I see "historic" Adventists will have is that they believe in a neutral condition between sin and righteousness. Adam was created neutral, and stayed that way until he chose between sin and righteousness. So also, the rest of us are born neutral, and stay that way until we choose either sin or righteousness.

We have remarked that one reason offered for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow better. But the only real reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow worse. The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative. The conservative theory would really be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact. But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post. But this which is true even of inanimate things is in a quite special and terrible sense true of all human things. An almost unnatural vigilance is really required of the citizen because of the horrible rapidity with which human institutions grow old. It is the custom in passing romance and journalism to talk of men suffering under old tyrannies. But, as a fact, men have almost always suffered under new tyrannies; under tyrannies that had been public liberties hardly twenty years before. Thus England went mad with joy over the patriotic monarchy of Elizabeth; and then (almost immediately afterwards) went mad with rage in the trap of the tyranny of Charles the First. So, again, in France the monarchy became intolerable, not just after it had been tolerated, but just after it had been adored. The son of Louis the well-beloved was Louis the guillotined. So in the same way in England in the nineteenth century the Radical manufacturer was entirely trusted as a mere tribune of the people, until suddenly we heard the cry of the Socialist that he was a tyrant eating the people like bread. So again, we have almost up to the last instant trusted the newspapers as organs of public opinion. Just recently some of us have seen (not slowly, but with a start) that they are obviously nothing of the kind. They are, by the nature of the case, the hobbies of a few rich men. We have not any need to rebel against antiquity; we have to rebel against novelty. It is the new rulers, the capitalist or the editor, who really hold up the modern world. There is no fear that a modern king will attempt to override the constitution; it is more likely that he will ignore the constitution and work behind its back; he will take no advantage of his kingly power; it is more likely that he will take advantage of his kingly powerlessness, of the fact that he is free from criticism and publicity. For the king is the most private person of our time. It will not be necessary for any one to fight again against the proposal of a censorship of the press. We do not need a censorship of the press. We have a censorship by the press.

This startling swiftness with which popular systems turn oppressive is the third fact for which we shall ask our perfect theory of progress to allow. It must always be on the look out for every privilege being abused, for every working right becoming a wrong. In this matter I am entirely on the side of the revolutionists. They are really right to be always suspecting human institutions; they are right not to put their trust in princes nor in any child of man. The chieftain chosen to be the friend of the people becomes the enemy of the people; the newspaper started to tell the truth now exists to prevent the truth being told. Here, I say, I felt that I was really at last on the side of the revolutionary. And then I caught my breath again: for I remembered that I was once again on the side of the orthodox.

Christianity spoke again and said: "I have always maintained that men were naturally backsliders; that human virtue tended of its own nature to rust or to rot; I have always said that human beings as such go wrong, especially happy human beings, especially proud and prosperous human beings. This eternal revolution, this suspicion sustained through centuries, you (being a vague modern) call the doctrine of progress. If you were a philosopher you would call it, as I do, the doctrine of original sin. You may call it the cosmic advance as much as you like; I call it what it is -- the Fall."

T: Babies need a Savior because their salvation is dependent upon the faith of their parents, and without a Savior their parents could have no faith.
R: Tom, I don't know how many reasons you have already given for a baby needing a Savior, but you outdid yourself in that one.
If their salvation is dependent upon the faith of their parents, it's obvious that they need salvation in the first place. Why do they need salvation? Salvation from what?
T: From sin of course. As Waggoner stated, "sin is in every fiber of our being by nature."

R:That's the point!

How many sins has a baby committed? If a baby needs salvation because of its sinful nature, then you agree with my view.

So, when a baby is born, you say it has no character.

Therefore, it is obvious that it does not have a character in harmony with God's principles. It is, at best, neutral.

That's the theory anyway. But as anyone who has ever had a baby will attest, it is all academic. Within moments of birth, every baby will show you what it is like: It won't be a manifestation of unselfish love; it won't be neutral either; it will show you, in no uncertain terms, that it has only itself in mind. The only time it will be neutral is when it is asleep.