Sinless people, those who do not understand what is right and wrong, including retarded people of any age, if they die have no sin against them to forbid them entrance to eternal life. As to entering the kingdom I have made no comments.
Such a statement, which seems to disregard the consequences of original sin, would be contrary to the teachings of the Apostles.
There are no “sinless people”. The only person without sin is Christ.
I don’t understand your response?
My question to you was about the kingdom.
You even quoted my question in your response.
You gave a bunch of Bible verses with no explanation.
I ask for an explaination of how these relate to my question (about the kingdom)
If your comments didn’t relate to my question why did you post my question in your response?
Because righteousness and salvation are not synonymous.
How do you define these two terms?
In simplest terms…
Righteousness is acting in accord with divine and moral law.
Salvation is deliverance from the power and effects of sin.
So a person can be righteous and not yet saved.
Think about it if the righteous are saved that would mean anyone who keeps the moral law would be righteous and automatically saved regardless of whether or not they believe in God.
Doesn’t work that way, our salvation comes through Jesus Christ, period.
Well, two kinds of righreousness…one keeping moral/written law, which no one has, the other being righteous thru faith in divine promise to cover for lack of keeping the first one…again back to a saving faith, resting in a revived spirit, counting as righteous or righteousness before God
Sure these were the people in the OT
I think I understand what you mean by this. This would be the faith that is impossible without the grace of God given to us as a free gift through the Holy Spirit because of Jesus Sacrifice for us on the cross. This type of righteousness was not possible for salvation, (born again, whatever you want to call it) in the OT before the coming of Christ.
PS on a side note it occurs to me that we would have to have both of these “types of righteousness” for salvation, because our faith does not give us a pass on the moral/written law.
This is precisely what the Apostle Paul teaches in the letter to the Romans.
6God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”a 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Rom… 2
This is not exclusive of salvation by grace through the finished work of Christ.
kindly disagree, cause none were righteous in OT based on keeping a law, and for that matter in NT also. Sorry, none are perfect save the Lord. Yet the Lord tells us there were righteous folk, even perfect in the OT. And so as not to contradict, that righteousness must then also be by grace and thru faith, old and new testament.
by your definition, with a future salvation/glorification in mind, correct.
again, by your definition the ot saints, and believers today, are two thirds saved, past and present, with the final “salvation” coming when we are glorified , like Christ, in heaven.
tough to think about when no one is righteous by any law, and as if someone can be perfect without God, or faith , of even an internal God given standard.
Well @mcq72, not sure where else to go with this.
How about we try this.
You give us a biblical definition, with scripture, of OT righteousness and OT Salvation as well as a Biblical definition, with scripture, of NT righteousness and NT Salvation.
This way we can both be on the same page with this discussion.
With all kindness, your comments are nothing more than opinions if you can’t at least show an explicit or even an implicit scriptural basis for your beliefs.
Let me know how you would like to proceed.
Please forgive me MT. I honestly don’t remember in what way our conversation was going in regards to the kingdom. Please keep in mind that I am running several conversations on this site, all in between other things. but mostly work.
If you will restate it, in full, concerning the kingdom, I will do my best to respond to you.
We weren’t having a conversation, I was speaking with Wannano 8 days ago. Here’s my post.
You quoted what I said to him and responded with a bunch of Bible verses. You gave no explanation of how these verses give any insight to my question to Wannano.
So I asked if you could explain how your verses show us a child before the age of reason is either born again or does not need to be born again to enter the Kingdom of God (Jesus spoke of in John 3)?
You responded…As to entering the kingdom I have made no comments.
Can you see why I am confused why you chose to pull my quote from my conversation with Wannano and not respond to the quote?
Okay, you are right. I apologize. Let me take the beginning of the statement and work on each part.
Yes we both know He did say that. One must be born of the Spirit in order to see the kingdom and then to enter it. In other words, one must have spiritual sight first! before they can act upon it. Spiritual sight comes through new birth. My only point here is that the phrase “kingdom of God” is typically interchanged with the term “eternal life,” as if they are equal terms. They are not in my view.
New birth, is used to mean regeneration and regeneration is used to mean one who has, now obtained eternal life, depending on how you deal with the doctrine of justification.
We, in the reformed view, see justification as a one-time act, in a moment of time, when you come to believe Jesus is the Christ. Much like how Abraham believed God as he gazed at the stars and it was accounted to him for “righteousness.” Gen. 15. This justification is your legal standing before God and is based on the finished work of Christ alone.
But until or unless you enter the kingdom of God you will only find yourself, (as a believer) outside of the kingdom. Outside of the kingdom does not mean outside of eternity away from God.
Only outside of God’s ways.
This statement now requires a definition. What is the kingdom of God? How is this phrase used in the N.T? If you can agree with me that by using the sum of Thy word you will find that the Kingdom of God is summed up by a short statement: saying it is God’s way of doing things. If you can agree to that, then we are on the same page. (if you need more explanation on that just say so.)
Entering the kingdom is simply entering God’s way of doing things. One who is born of the Spirit can now (do more than just believe) they can enter into God’s ways … This is why Nicodemus didn’t know what Jesus was talking about. The Spirit of God had not yet regenerated men at this point in time. For him the kingdom of God was natural and literal only. “How can a man enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
It is in entering and learning God’s ways you find out that repentance is needed for growth. You find out that faith and more faith is needed for growth. Good works is needed for growth. You find out that water baptism is obedience to Christ and needed for growth. You find out a lot of things.
CONTINUATION TO MT
Here’s an example of the opposite: The Pharisees were charged with “shutting up” the kingdom of God against the nation of Israel, in Matthew 23:13. Why? They tied up heavy loads (of Law) onto the shoulders of men too hard to carry, and they themselves were unwilling to lift a finger." 23:4 nor were they themselves willing to enter 23:13.
In other words they twisted the intent of the Law and used their authority to manipulate men. Luke 11:52 agreed when he said, “… they have taken away the KEY of knowledge! you didn’t go in yourselves, and you hindered those who were going in.”
Luke was talking about the very same Pharisees who SHUT UP the kingdom of God against the people in Mt. 23… why? They sat themselves in the chair of Moses, (a symbolic chair of authority and learning.)
But they themselves were ignorantly not ready to enter the kingdom of God for themselves. New birth was far from their reach. Why? They were rejecting the only means to new birth, the acceptance of their messiah.
But a baby who dies without committing a sin will stand at the judgment seat of Christ to receive a reward based on works. And God, the eternal and just God, will render a verdict.
Of course God knew all along when this baby would die. He was not surprised that this baby died before having any understanding or good works. So, will this baby enter the kingdom of God? I don’t know how he cannot. It is possible that at his death he receives a regenerating work. But I’d rather not speculate without seeing it in scripture and the scriptures seem to be silent on it. Actually I’ve not done any thorough study on it. And so, how a baby is treated in heaven, I don’t know.
OK you’ve got me even more confused.
You make a definitive statement…
Where does the Bible say this, about babies?
The reason I ask is because when you don’t have an answer you claim…
How is your claim above not speculation, since the Bible is silent on God’s judgement of babies?
Jesus outright says…
3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew,[a] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Where does it say this excludes those under the age of reason?
Sure you say this about the kingdom…
I can agree that this is part of the meaning, but I will need more explanation if you are claiming this is the only meaning.
The words “kingdom of God” occurs 122 in the New Testament. It’s hard to believe it can only have this one meaning. When I read these words in scripture I see the most understandable interpretation from Jesus is the fact that the kingdom of God is God being present among us again, like Adam was in God’s presence.
This makes the most sense to me because when Adam sinned (original sin) God no longer walked with him in the garden. Babies are born with original sin and therefore did not inherit the the grace needed to be in the presence of God. Thus the reason we need to be born again, to get back our inheritance.
So this is the essence of my question how does a baby, with original sin, who is not yet born again regain the grace necessary to be in the presence of God?
I’m not claiming anything on this subject. I need to do some research on it, so please forgive me if I speculated too much.
When you study these terms as a whole, included how they are used in the parables, to sum it up in simple words, it seems to indicate God’s ways, or the way God does things.
I’m not too far off, however, the Amplified version actually uses this term in Luke 16:16. The domain of the king whether it is physical or spiritual, is the order and province of the King. But if you are not convinced, I won’t press it.
We know that Nicodemus and anyone today, cannot see it or enter it unless they are born of God.
As a former Baptist that shared most of the same beliefs, an enormous amount of your theology is speculation.
Which is fine. It just kinda flies in the face of the “man and his bible” narrative that is usually invoked as the evangelical basis of belief.
I am not familiar with the concept of inheriting grace. Sinless babies will not need grace. But I will not comment any more on this until I research it.
Oh yeah… Is your opinion speculation?