A person stated in our Sabbath School Class discussion this morning that all are born saved and all choose to be lost.

This same person also said that the implication is that those who are born up to the age of accountability who die prior to the age of accountability will all rise up at the 1st resurrection.

Do you agree or disagree with the above?

I tend to disagree, but am in research mode at this time, which is basically why I created this thread for your thoughts regarding this.

"All have sinned" therefore all must die. All must choose rebirth or all must die. In Christ, and only in Christ, can any one escape condemnation and eternal death.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but can you back this up from the Bible and/or from the writings of EGW?

The best Bible Study on this topic, that I know of, is Steps to Christ.

Accountability? Age of 18, 21, or defined by whom? Guess I'm saying I could not agree with that statement as it has a variable definition according to who you speak to. Or what country or state you are in.

Tom claims this was Jones and Waggoner's position, if I'm not mistaken, but I couldn't find evidence for this.
Jack Sequeira and other modern SDA exponents hold this position.

I've never claimed that Jones and Waggoner taught that those who are born up to the age of accountability who die prior to the age of accountability will all rise up at the 1st resurrection.

Also it's not true that Sequeira holds this position.

By "other modern SDA exponents," who did you have in mind?

When dealing with this subject, it's very important to be careful with how one expresses things.

Here's something from Waggoner:



Something else:



Here's the last sentence:



Something from the SOP:



Something else:



To say that we are born saved, I think may be vague. What does this mean?

What Waggoner says is that God has given a gift to all, and that this gift must be either be neglected or spurned to not have effect.

What Ellen White says is that Christ restored the entire race of men to favor with God. This would seem to imply that a person must do something to lose this favor.

In the Desire of Ages quote she brings out that a person must do something to be lost, which is to resist the drawing of the Holy Spirit. This is seen by the following:

1.How then are we to be saved?
2.Look and live.
3.All who do not resist the drawing of the love of God will do this.

Therefore to be lost, one must resist the drawing of the love of God shining from the cross.

Regarding all being saved if they die before the age of accountability, from reading EGW's comments in Selected Messages and elsewhere (3SM, IIRC, speaks specifically to the issue of infants/young children dying before the age of accountability) what I believe is the following:

1.God will take everyone to heaven He can.
2.If a person's character is not in harmony with God and His principles, such cannot be taken to heaven, because such would be miserable in heaven.
3.An infant/young child's capacity to be taken to heaven is largely impacted by its parents.

As I recall (from 3SM), she states directly that some believers infants/young children will not be taken to heaven. She strongly implies, but does not explicitly state, that some unbeliever's infants/young children will be taken to heaven.

We raised 3 children and I can testify that each one of them were aware of right and wrong beginning within the first few months of life. The character is basically established within the fist five years. And, since God judges people based on what they know and believe, it stands to reason the eternal destiny of children will be determined pretty much the same way as everyone else.

On the cross, Jesus made pardon and salvation possible and available to anyone and everyone willing to comply with the conditions. Before the conditions are met, however, everyone is in a lost state because "all have sinned" and the "wages of sin is death". Our default state is sin and guilt and condemnation. Not because A&E sinned, but because "all have sinned". Yes, the Godhead, and all heaven, work earnestly to motivate and influence everyone to embrace Jesus as their personal Savior, and it requires effort on the part of sinners to resist and reject such labor of love. But it also requires effort, way more effort, to resist and reject Satan and sinful flesh and to embrace Jesus. Ellen wrote:

I was referring to the first statement: that all are born saved and all choose to be lost - isn't this what universal legal justification (ULJ) teaches? The second statement is a corollary of the first one, that is, if all are born saved, they couldn't be lost until they are mature enough to make this decision.
Jack Sequeira and The 1888 Study Committee (mainly Wieland and Short) advocate ULJ.

If all are born saved, then all begin as A&E began. But such a sinless state would be extremely short lived. Infants react and respond to negative stimuli in sinful ways. True, they are ignorant and, therefore, innocent ans as such God does not hold them accountable. Nevertheless, He does hold Jesus accountable. It is the life and death of Jesus that gives God the legal right to count people who sin ignorantly innocent. Sins of ignorance are, nonetheless, sins and require the atoning blood of Jesus.

Some people seem to think "Satan attacks us at our weak points" implies guilt and condemnation, that is, having "weak points" is a sin for which God counts us guilty and condemned. However, having defects, weaknesses, and imperfections is not a sin. Yes, acting them out is a sin. But abiding in Jesus and reining them in, subjecting them to the control of a sanctified will and mind, results in victory - not corruption or contamination.

According to this view (Universal Legal Justification), the reason why people are born saved is because of the blood of Jesus. If they remain saved until they consciously choose to be lost, this means they remain saved until the age of accountability (which, Mike, can't be when they are just some months old, because they are sinning ignorantly).

There are sinful weak points and non-sinful weak points. A sinful weak point is a defect of character.

I definitely do not subscribe to Universal Justification. Jesus will determine, based on sound criteria and judgment, who is lost and saved. In cases involving infants, we can trust Jesus to judge righteously. Such judgments will be made on a case-by-case basis. There is no one-size-fits-all.

Yes, defective traits of character, whether inherited or cultivated, are sinful weaknesses, imperfections. However, as I mentioned above, having them is not the same thing as acting them out. So long as we are abiding in Jesus, merely having them does not incur guilt or condemnation.

What about the statement that "imperfection of character is sin"?

When I was growing up in the "old country," one method to determine accountability is to see if you can reach over your head and touch your ear on the other side of your head without tilting your head. Tough luck for people with short arms!

I've never seen "age of accountability" in the Bible or SOP. Does anyone know of a text? Otherwise, I don't think we should be basing anything on such a concept.

While looking for a thread I came across this inactive one and decided to respond to it.

What is the origin of this "age of accountability" concept?

IIRC, it was Willie White who brought that up. But I don't consider him inspired.

We are all born carnal.
That is -- our natures naturally are selfish and sinful.

Scripture says we must be born again.
John 3:3 Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Without the cross -- the whole human race was lost with absolutely no hope.
With the cross -- that barrier was removed, and now everyone who comes to Christ and accepts Him as Lord and Savior will be saved.

It's like the world was plunged into a black hole with no way out, but Christ opened a glorious door and reached down so everyone Who grasps His hand can be pulled out of darkness into His light.

Hm - how is it we are BORN carnal? Must be in the DNA... Has to be in the DNA.

Now we are again touching something basic in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church who owe so much to Aurelius Augustinus of Hippo that no theological treatise was accepted during the Middle Ages unless 75% of it was based on Augustine. And Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk. Some of his teachings might even have entered into Adventism thinking. . .

Augustine was not a Christian when he became professor at the University of Milan 384 AD. While there his mother, St. Monica, and St. Ambrosius, influenced him to convert. In the Church he found some things which lacked a theological basis, so he went ahead to make one which was accepted by the Church. It was needed to accept

1. Infant baptism

2. Monasticism

3. Celibate male priesthood

So Augustine wrote and proposed the doctrine of Original Sin, basing it on Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

From this text he concluded that the sexual act is the sin itself.

Therefore there was no other method by which a child could be saved than to be baptized as soon as possible after birth, in case it should die. That infant baptism is what is needed for salvation, but in order to remain sinless the person had to keep him/herself away from sex for the rest of his/her life. This became the theology of monasticism, the reason why men and women should separate and live in monasteries where they also could do good work to themselves(prayer and meditation) and to others.

And this was also the theology/doctrine of the celibate male only priesthood. The priest must not be a sinner so he could forgive the sins of others. It seems evident it had to be a male who had conquered the real sin of mankind.

In one of his sermons, of which we still have the notes, he said:

- You men, sin is right there between your legs.

In one of his treaties Augustine admits that a relationship between male and female is essential for the continuance of mankind. He admonished people to have as little enjoyment as possible from the act itself to make it less sinful. The good works of the monks, nuns and priests will then be transferred to the sinner that they might still be saved.

This is the original doctrine of Original Sin. How much of this do you regard as Biblical? How much of this has been adopted into the thinking of Adventism? Understanding the Bible?

- - -

You will find many of the links to this in the standard biography by Peter Brown: Augustine of Hippo. Also in Augustine's Autobiography. In English there is a two volume set of Basic Writings of Saint Augustine, published by Bake Book House. Here is also his autobiography. I have also see in a university library a selection of Augustine's sermons.

In the preface of Basic Writings we are reminded that Augustine is the most important figure to understand if we want to understand the Western civilization in which we live, and the fusion of the Hebraic and Christian with the Greek and the Roman.
This is where we live and breathe and we cannot avoid being influenced by it.

What influence has this had on certain eras in our recent history?

How many of us are influence by this thinking - even through a good Adventist friend - when we read our Bibles(even if you say you are only following the Bible)?

"All have sinned." Including infants. We choose to be saved.

How has an infant sinned the moment it comes out of the mother?

Johann,

That's a faithless question, because the Bible says "all have sinned." Either you don't believe the Bible, or you don't believe that babies are people. It's one or the other.

In other words, whether we like to think ourselves capable of understanding all the reasons for "how," "why," or "wherefore," the Bible is a superior guide and support to human reasoning. I have presented here on this forum some of the "how," but perhaps not all like to accept it at true.

If you hear people complaining all the time about things, do you find yourself tending to resonate with their view? Now, consider that the newborn has been "resonating" with its mother for many months--is that mother perfect? Hardly. And the baby has picked up on the mother's habits.

One point that must be made clear: it is possible to sin without knowing it. If one is ignorant of the law of God, the law is still the law. Sin is transgression of the law, NOT "willful, knowing transgression of the law." We might all agree that the baby does not realize his or her own sinfulness. He or she may not have willfully sinned, and likely has little to no knowledge of the law of God at birth. Such ignorance does not mean it cannot have transgressed the law.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

What is "carnal?" If you are meaning "flesh," then of course it has to do with DNA. This definition of "carnal" would mean we will still be carnal even if we are not sinning. It would mean Jesus was also "carnal."

If, however, you define "carnal" as being "fleshly-minded" as opposed to "spiritual," then we find that the definition has to do with the thinking, and as such, has little or nothing to do with DNA. No matter what DNA we have been given, we have the gift of free choice and can choose to be spiritual or choose to be sinful.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Your comments are on a question never asked.

Green, is your thinking too close to the Roman Catholic concept - without realizing it - for you to understand the question I asked?

Johann,

Perhaps the question was overly broad then. Perhaps it would be like asking "how has Johann sinned?" Perhaps it is not for us to judge. Only God knows.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Perhaps Johann's thinking is close to that of the Roman Catholics--only the priests should interpret the Bible to the people.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Interesting way of avoiding an honest reply!

Excellent question. It's hard to imagine sweet, innocent, helpless things doing anything wrong. Infants have legitimate needs - food, water, love, comfort, etc. However, there is "none righteous," all are "by nature the children of wrath," therefore, infants cannot prevent themselves from sinning as they seek to meet and express their needs. I'm in California right now visiting my cousin and his family. They have an infant. So cute. But, man oh man, she sure can throw a fit. Her screams remind me of horror shows. Wow. I'm certain Jesus does not hold her accountable for her scary outbursts. He paid the price for her sins. But eventually she'll reach a point where she must repent or perish.

Yes - Ephesians 2:3 ..."by nature the children of wrath"...

Exactly - and HOW does that happen. I know, green and asygo do not like it when I ask how, but are really in the dark? It is in our nature, our DNA.

I take "nature" to mean what we do by default - naturally, automatically, instinctively. To do otherwise we must be born again and partake of the "divine nature," which enables us to use our faculties of mind and body to mature in the fruits of the Spirit. The result of acting out either "nature" is character - old man or new man.

Sure glad there is a friend here on this forum who does not ridicule that question, but is willing to attack it head on. Thank you, Mike! Because this is an interesting question.

When you say that you are certain Jesus does not hold her accountable for her scary outbursts, you say that He has paid a price for her before she reaches accountability. Some people call that forensic justification. I will not argue with you what you call it, but Jesus does something for all men here on earth.
I´m sure you disagree with Augustine of Hippo that what he calls the Original Sin is not discharged through a baptism right after birth, although this concept seems quite common among many Protestants.

On the other hand, are you in agreement with St. Augustine how the sin is transmitted, which he based on Psalms 51:5? Was his a true Biblical interpretation?

But doesn't it say in Steps to Christ that by the use of your will power and good education you are able to learn to make many right choices and even live a beautiful life? (My own wording)

Johann, you're welcome. It's important to discuss truth in a civil way - truth can afford it. Seems to me we are guilty of the sins we ourselves commit - not the ones our parents or ancestors commit. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:20. Infants sin because they are born that way. They cannot not sin. They must experience rebirth, abide in Jesus, partake of the divine nature, and then they can imitate Jesus' example of "righteousness and true holiness". Steps to Christ describes it very nicely.

But here they are powerless.

Are you kidding, asygo? Why?

Isn't that kind of double dealing by a "righteous" God?

DNA?

Recently I read that most of the food we eat is poisoned because the grain used most frequently has been manipulated to shorten the straw. So now I get unmanipulated breakfast cereal and bread. It is more expensive, but I feel the difference.

Biblical history indicates that the human lifespan and hight have both been shortened. Is there any kind of similarity or comparison?

Then there is also the question if Jesus was born with similar DNA to ours?

Not sure what you mean, pastor. Please explain. Thank you.

Powerless to change the heart, powerless to save, that's for sure.


However, the following insight is interesting:

It looks like MM took the words right out of my mouth, or more literally, my fingers.

Will power and education have their sphere, but that sphere does not include salvation. Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.

Hebrews 2:16-18
16 For truly he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

Jesus was "made like" his brothers. Yes, Jesus had similar DNA.

Yes, genetic manipulation leads to all kinds of problems. Google "BT toxin" and GMO and see the number of hits you find. EGW tells us that weeds are the result of "Satan's ingenious methods of amalgamation", that is genetic engineering.

We have had a tremendous fall off in life span and probably size. Two things come into play, genetics and epigenetics. Epigenetics have to do with genetic switching, turning on and off and moderating gene expression. Epigenetics can be changed, and we by our lifestyle change our epigenetic profile. Epigenetics can also turn on and off bad genes. The food we eat does affect our epigenetic profile, in a number of ways. Food also can expose us to mobile genetic elements which we can incorporate into our genomes via lateral gene transfer. Before the flood, the ages of the people were all fairly similar and long, living 900+ years. At the time of the flood, did the diet change? Yes it did!

Here is an interesting fact - we always speak about "the fall". But EGW says that we have had a series of "falls" each worse that the prior. And this has lead to the deterioration of the race. It is in the DNA.

It seems partaking of the divine nature enables people to resist their DNA and imitate Jesus' godly traits of character.

Not just DNA but our sinful spiritual nature as well.

I am referring to what you say that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father but then the son is still guilty.

How can the child be guilty it does not carry the guilt of the parents

asygo - do you believe in dualism? That there is something in us that is separate and independent of the body?

Yes, we must be "born again".

Excellent thought there, MM. But what, in practical terms, does it mean to "partake of the Divine nature"?

....
...

Oh, I see what you mean. Thank you for clarifying. As I read it, the son is guilty of his own sin. "All have sinned." "The soul that sinneth, it shall die . . . the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

Romans
3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Perhaps it part of the "mystery of godliness". Somehow Jesus empowers us from within to resist the unholy clamorings of sinful flesh and to act out the fruits of the Spirit. Not sure how it works in practical terms but in the real world it means we are able to imitate Jesus' holy example of obedience. We can experience it but we can't explain it.

"When the heart yields to the influence of the Spirit of God, the conscience will be quickened, and the sinner will discern something of the depth and sacredness of God's holy law, the foundation of His government in heaven and on earth. The "Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world," illumines the secret chambers of the soul, and the hidden things of darkness are made manifest. John 1:9. Conviction takes hold upon the mind and heart. The sinner has a sense of the righteousness of Jehovah and feels the terror of appearing, in his own guilt and uncleanness, before the Searcher of hearts. He sees the love of God, the beauty of holiness, the joy of purity; he longs to be cleansed and to be restored to communion with Heaven. {SC 24.2}

"Christ manifested a love that is incomprehensible; and as the sinner beholds this love, it softens the heart, impresses the mind, and inspires contrition in the soul. {SC 26.4}

He is speaking to the hearts of men and creating an inexpressible craving for something they have not. The things of the world cannot satisfy their longing. The Spirit of God is pleading with them to seek for those things that alone can give peace and rest--the grace of Christ, the joy of holiness. Through influences seen and unseen, our Saviour is constantly at work to attract the minds of men from the unsatisfying pleasures of sin to the infinite blessings that may be theirs in Him. To all these souls, who are vainly seeking to drink from the broken cisterns of this world, the divine message is addressed, "Let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Revelation 22:17. {SC 28.1}

But let none deceive themselves with the thought that God, in His great love and mercy, will yet save even the rejecters of His grace. The exceeding sinfulness of sin can be estimated only in the light of the cross. When men urge that God is too good to cast off the sinner, let them look to Calvary. It was because there was no other way in which man could be saved, because without this sacrifice it was impossible for the human race to escape from the defiling power of sin, and be restored to communion with holy beings,--impossible for them again to become partakers
of spiritual life,--it was because of this that Christ took upon Himself the guilt of the disobedient and suffered in the sinner's stead. The love and suffering and death of the Son of God all testify to the terrible enormity of sin and declare that there is no escape from its power, no hope of the higher life, but through the submission of the soul to Christ. {SC 31.2}

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
That seems to suggest people were already born condemned, Christ didn't come to condemn, He came because they were already condemned and His mission was to save them -- release them from this condemnation.
3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Now we see a line drawn between the condemned and the redeemed.
Those who take hold, by faith, believing and trusting Jesus Christ are not condemned.

3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Those condemned remain so, because the light of truth and redemption came, but they rejected it.

3:21 But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Love of truth -- come to the light find truth in Jesus.

In the darkness is the
Romans 2:10 deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.