Theological Controversy Over Children: With Dr. Adam Harwood
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ก.ค. 2024
- Theological Controversy Over Children: With Dr. Adam Harwood
Theological issues surrounding children have been quite controversial over the years. Should we baptize babies, Is there an age of accountability, What about Sudden Infant Deaths. Dr. Adam Harwood will be with us soon to discuss these very important issues. Hope you enjoy.
Donate (Paypal)
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
___________________________________________________________________________________
Exclusive Content (Patreon)
/ theremnantradio
__________________________________________________________________________________
We're social!
Facebook: / theremnantradio
Instagram: / theremnantradio
___________________________________________________________________________________
Our Favorite Books
www.amazon.com/shop/theremnan...
![[ไฮไลต์] แบดมินตันชาย วิว กุลวุฒิ ไทย vs ฟินแลนด์ รอบแบ่งกลุ่ม | โอลิมปิก 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GIbeFO0tvnQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Josh - The fact that you are willing to call it the ones who continually, endlessly throw around the word 'Pelagian' if you diasgree with Augustine, shows a true openness and it is appreciated. Regardless of where you stand, thank you for taking this show to the level of discussion that it needs to achieve to truly weigh and measure these concepts. You rock!
Watched it again 😅 This was such a thought-provoking, interesting conversation. Definitely looking forward to checking out more content and to hear Dr. Harwood again. Really great video.
WOW!!!! This was a very thought-provoking, interesting conversation. EXCELLENT interview!!! I like the perspectives of Dr. Adam Harwood, .... I need to read his written works.
Would love to hear more on this. Worth the time given to it 👍🏻
The argument of death as proof of guilt, actually ends up as blasphemous in light of Christ's Passion.
The fact that no one esle liked this comment or mentioned it shows how, with these views, we always have to account for Jesus' humanity to avoid making serious extrabiblical errors and assumptions. Seems people are so focused on man and sin they leave Jesus out of the discussion being born out of a woman's womb.
Have y’all thought about doing an episode on the history of the Celtic Church and Celtic Christian Spirituality? Ray Simpson and Ian Bradley have done great work on this.
I don't know if Remnant Radio would cover that topic because that's not even Biblical Christianity.. it's a form of new age mysticism... Ray Simpson's "Jesus" is a different Jesus than the one found in the bible. Simpson's "Jesus" is focused on healing land, community, and "travelers" on a spiritual pilgrimage who are anim cara mentors ("friend of the soul") .... that is not Christianity...and it is easily refuted by simply reading the Bible for yourself... just take the time to read the whole bible, especially the 238 pages of the New Testament. Once you see who Jesus really is and read why we need His salvation for SIN and glorification, and you read His miracles and His explanation for those miracles and His parables in context, you will hopefully discover that there is nothing "Christian" about "Celtic Christian Spirituality".. it is a false religion with a different Jesus than the one in the Bible.
I agree with the "sinful human nature" concept. It makes the most sense to me and I completely understand it!
Just to share some things to think about.....you say "I agree w "sinful human nature" based on Romans 1:3 and Hebrews 4:15 would you say Jesus was sinful or not human?
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh..
Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
and
Adam was created "very good" (Gen 1:31) and yet *_Adam sinned_* so did God create Adam with "a sinful nature"?
these details get overlooked but they're worth considering.
@@inTruthbyGrace Jesus was truly God and truly Human, He was certainly without sin; hence why it could only be Him... I'd have to recap my memory on this video to further answer, as I have forgotten about it!
@@jess1987 Oh it's ok Jessi.. I was just sharing some verses to consider about the claim that we have a "sinful human nature".. those got me thinking a little differently ... I don't have all the answers for sure :)
The Apostle Paul says that he was alive once, then the Law came and he learned that coveting was wrong, and at the point he died. I think that this is pretty solid evidence that there is an age, or state, of accountability that is tied to our knowledge of good and evil.
Great point!
Lots of people in the chat were saying how much this helped them, how much understanding they where gaining, and they now have a new area to study. Way cool. Wonderful guest, Dr Adam Harwood.
But oh yeah, the chat went a little down hill near the end, when we started quoting some fat comedian...
To answer the interviewer's question at 1:05:00 - Even if a guiltless non-sinful nature infant of 1 day dies, this child would still require the work of Jesus Christ to enter eternity because of multiple reasons. One, even the sinless infant requires a glorified body to live in eternity. Two, even the sinless infant lives with the consequence of not having access to the tree of life leading to mortality. Three, without Christ having resurrected from the dead, RESURRECTION itself would not have been available to the day old infant. Just as death was introduced by Adam, resurrection life was introduced by Jesus Christ.
So what we're saved from is not just from sin, but we're saved from / ransomed from the Law i.e. the Old Covenant which is the POWER of sin (1Cor 15:56) and death which is the PENALTY of sin (1Cor 15:56). In the case of the guiltless infant, since the infant lives in Union with God until it first sins, even though there is no requirement for salvation from the POWER of sin (Romans 7:9), there is requirement of salvation from the PENALTY of sin (physical death due to lack of access to the tree of life) for the sinless infant.
The sinner who comes to faith ALSO gets his spiritual death (separation from union with God) atoned for.
this makes sense, i would agree with you
Here is a relevant translation from the Council of Carthage. 397 A.D. This was essentially a repeat of Canons of Hippo, Augustine's Bishopric- 393 A.D. This Canon would leave an infant deceased prior to baptism, as lost apparently.
Canon 110. (Greek cxii. bis)
"That infants are baptized for the remission of sins
Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.
For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned, than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration
www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
Is it possible that those who die, under the age of accountability, are raised to life at the Second Coming, and a part of "the Nations" that the Church Rules along with Christ in the Millennial Kingdom?
This would seem to solve so many issues, and answer so many questions, as those children would grow up, under the Lordship of Christ, and then either trust in Him as their Lord and Savior, or join with the Enemy's final rebellion (Revelation 20:7-10).
I agree totally with your submission dear brother 🙏
I think perhaps what Adam was trying to articulate towards the end was that he doesn't consider human nature intrinsically sinful, because Jesus had human nature; but refraining from sin requires a divine nature.
That would explain why Jesus did not sin but normal humans do.
I promise I am not stalking you. Your reply to me caused me to revisit this video and other comments.
In Romans we are told that our sinfulness is passed down through Adam, not Eve. Man, not woman. Jesus did not have an earthly Father, so he did not inherit a sin-nature. He was perfect as Adam and Eve were prior to the fall. The difference is he did not sin when tempted. As 1 Corinthians says, He was the second Adam.
@@ab5879 Haha don't worry I don't think you are stalking me, I do that too.
If your argument is true, it sounds to me like you would expect a cloned human (with no father) to not have a inclination towards sin.
That doesn't sound right to me.
But if that is the case, there's a good chance we might find out soonish; probably from Chinese experiments.
@@IamGrimalkin I am not a scientist, so I could be wrong, but my understanding of cloning is it is the same as copying. Whatever you copied must've had a father. One would only copy the sin-nature of one person to another.
@@ab5879
Correct, whatever is cloned will have a father, the same way that Mary had a father.
But if sinful nature is only passed on exclusively through the father, it seems to me that the clone of a woman would have no sinful nature, as they have no father.
If the father of the mother can pass on the sinful nature to their granddaughter, that doesn't really solve the issue of Jesus not having a sinful nature.
@@ab5879
Oh, I see what you mean now.
.
No, cloning as done currently is not making an identical adult copy of someone like in sci-fi movies.
.
What happens is the nucleus of their regular cells (containing all of their nuclear DNA) is transplanted into an egg cell.
.
Since egg cells usually have half the DNA and gain all the DNA when fertilised, having all the nuclear DNA in the cell will make it multiply like a regular zygote.
.
One other thing worth noting is that the egg cell can be from someone else, which means they can get their nuclear DNA from one woman and their mitochondrial DNA from another.
The elephant in the theological room is the concept of Original Sin. Why does the Orthodox Church shy away from the notion (in short, Augustine's weighty pressing down on the Latin West, Catholic or Reformed). Do a struggle session with the question, did the West misconstrue the concept. Answer that, then return to the issue of infant baptism.
Through one man SIN & DEATH entered the [man's] world. How does guilt ride the coattails of that.
NOTE: How "original" was Adam's sin? Did Adam (and his wife) *invent* sin, called sin into "existence" (a horribly wrong term). Adam's originality (regarding sin) can only refer to the opening of the door so rebellion and death becomes a part of the story of man. Besides, sin and judgment entered the cosmos via angelic agency *before* Adam, and his wife, fell. Whatever "before" means in this or any context regarding the relation of God's two families (Heiser's term), angelic and human.
You can't separate the origin and definition of sin, from infant issues. Any tinkering with doctrine regarding one, will impact the other.
Original sin is a spell cast by the Catholic Church to control you and your fiat currency.
Too bad the Eastern Orthodox Churches practice infant baptism which only really makes sense in an Augustinian world view. There is no faith by the baby being baptized so it’s a religious act. Humans aren’t born guilty (original sin).
Maybe consider reading: "Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature?" - by Jesse Morrell ( 237 pages)
I agree with the guest’s assertion that Christ’s death and resurrection is also a deliverance from death. As Protestants, we do ourselves a huge disservice when we limit the atoning work of Christ to what we perceive as a judicial punishment for sin. Sin in Scripture and Christian tradition (especially in the early church, the East and the Celtic Christian traditions) is seen also as a spiritual power that has placed humanity in slavery due to man’s initial rebellion against God. Humanity handed itself over to the lordship of sin, which produces death because sin wants to destroy what God deeply loved. Therefore, we are bound the wicked abusive overlord of sin and death. We need deliverance whether we are guilty of sin or not, but because we are born slaves to this power that hates both God and us, it does not take long before we sin as well. In that sense we are sinners and in constant need of the grace and life of Christ to be forgiven and receive his divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) in order to live in the freedom Christ has brought us into.
What is this, Brandon?
If a Hebrew god actually existed outside the man made stories in the Bible,
and possessed the power to create human beings exactly as he pleased
in accordance with his Divine Perfect Plan,
then sin is exactly what he wants.
If sin is not part of Christ's Divine Plan then whose plan is it?
@@JamesRichardWiley I’m not sure what you are trying to say, or where you are going with this. It is not my belief that sin was in anyway God’s desire or part of his “divine plan.”
Inst it just intrinsic that someone looking at a baby as a guilty sinner, needs more help than any theology can produce. It's almost too terrible to tackle in my eyes.
If you do not believe that babies are sinners, I think it would be helpful to answer the following questions:
Could a baby possibly sin? If so, what is the earliest age?
Are sinless babies saved in a different way than sinners? I am saved through faith alone. Is the sinless baby also saved through faith? What would be the purpose of that faith or what would that faith be in if they were innocent and therefore justified apart from Christ? If they are not saved through faith alone, what Bible passages support that?
If sinners do not necessarily give birth to sinners, why did Christ need to have a heavenly Father? Couldn't he have accomplished what he did through the seed of Joseph? Couldn't we also choose to live a sinless life and therefore be saved apart from faith?
@@ab5879 I'll be honest with you. I don't find my conscience will even allow such a discussion. I will maybe answer once. Man surely is a sinner. Being willing to curse an innocent baby just out the womb shows the depths of hell he has sunk, surely this shows he has no escape from the pit. Showing also that sin is a forceful, wilful act done with God created nature's or God made flesh. Not an instinct or God made flesh , but wilful disobedience from the will or disposition. From which any human can turn to Jesus and so good. . I am ashamed for answering this
@@granthollandvideos Am I interpreting you correctly?
It hurts your conscience to say that man has fallen into sin so much that he (or myself) would even suggest that babies are not innocent? And that saying such is proof that that person (me) will sink into the pit of hell?
Just want to make sure we're all clear here.
Newborns know nothing about sin or gods.
They are born free of sin
no matter what the Bible, or Yahweh, or the Catholic Church says.
That is the truth.
I used to agree with Augustine that we were seminally in Adam. This video got me thinking, unless Seth was conceived the next time Adam and Eve had sex then we were not in Adam's semen when he sinned. We, however, were in Eve, not that that has any spiritual impact in my opinion.
Jesus was redeeming us from death and the power of sin first. Then from our sin and guilt once we have committed it. Redeeming us back to the full life relationship with God that was lost before we were kicked out of the garden.
A person needs a savior as soon as they can seek Jesus.
The math wasnt mathing...but so interesting. Also where was Micheal!
Michael is on a writing sabbatical
Redemption is about Jesus’s defeat of death Heb 2:14 IE. The wages of sin is death . Whether one is a sinner at birth or at the age of accountability. Sin is the disease that corrupts humanity unto death . The message of the Gospel is that Jesus defeated death which by the fact of His Resurrection proves His Victory . He who has the son has Life He who does not have the son has death . We are born with a Carnal nature . This carnal nature will always lean toward sin . Unless 1:19:59 one is born again and filled with the Triune Nature , 1:15:52 sin will control the Carnal Nature .
I’m serving the last Adam not the First , not by my merit but rather His Grace .
If guilt/sin nature is hereditary then salvation can be hereditary.
Interesting that the host is so ingrained with the idea that human beings are born "compromised" due to the fall that he can't see that we sin for the exact same reason Adam and Eve sinned: we want to. It's not the fault of a "sin nature" we inherited, it's not Adam's fault, it's not the environment's fault. Human beings just sin, 100% of the time, because we want to be our own god and call our own shots.
This is a very good discussion. Listening a second time when I can pay closer attention. @38:00 Grudem is a theologian, not attorney, and here is a fly in the systematic theology:
If God can "find" a way to "save" infants who have inherited guilt, it will affect other claims before God.
Specifically, unclean spirits. Here are the facts:
1. Eve = mother of all living. All means all, past, present or future. It is inclusive of any having at least partial DNA from the mother, without regard to any father, human or otherwise, or technology in it's creation.
2. Unclean spirits have a pending judgment before God. The spokesperson for the Legion referenced this in Matt 8:29. Their statement (a) recognized Jesus as God. (b)Identified a future decision on their fate. (c)Mistakenly viewed Jesus's presence in Gadera was for extra judicial torment.
Point (c) is an accusation that God is corrupt. This will be their argument at the Judgement. They introduce no evidence of innocence. Their fate balances on the ability to show corruption of the God Head.
If God can show favoritism to some of the living, while tormenting other living of similar guilt, the claims of the unclean spirits are proven correct. Likewise, the accusations of the Satan recorded in Job, will be found true.
Another way forward must be found where the dead can be "saved" without simultaneously freeing unclean spirits, and handing victory to the Satan.
We inherit central nature by then inherits of Adam-and-Eve Also that question L brought up I don't wanna be argumentative but is not true I was brought up Lutheran All lutheran pastors sermons that I have observed always points back to the baptism for the assurance of salvation in heaven of the deceased All lutheran pastors sermons that I have observed always points back to the baptism for the assurance of salvation in heaven of the deceased
Harwood is way off the path. He seems to be confused and is totally misunderstanding scripture. For example, Jesus did not say children were without a sin nature, he was simply pointing to the fact, that as persons, not yet having reached the age of accountability, were in a state of innocence. Josh is doing a good job, but is having a hard time trying to figure out where Harwood is coming from. If someone like Dr. David Allen was in the discussion, I believe he could show Harwood where he is wrong
not innocence but possessing the kind of faith that saves them, older children and adults
He is catholic in his position.
And what if Adam and Eve never existed?
Baptism is based on a belief in the children's bedtime story of Adam and Eve
in which Yahweh sets a trap for Adam and Eve
knowing they will fall into it
and he will be able to kick them out of paradise.
What a mean thing for a loving, caring god to do to his beloved children.
This is the result of critical thinking.
True, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. It was all part of the plan, the beginning, but not the end. Unless we were robotically good, how else would He give us understanding? Can you know love without hate, mercy without justice, forgiveness without pain? Law of opposites.
Nothing is beyond repair.