Speaker 1 0:26

We were considering the topics for this get together, and um I as I mentioned I found that there just remains some perspective on the topic of infant salvation, age of accountability, the situation with David and Bathsheba, uh especially that we didn't really, you know, we kind of opened up that passage and this this long passage, and there's just it just seemed like there was a lot there that maybe we should have talked about a little bit since we were opening it up. It often seems that way in scripture. Like, okay, well, I looked at it from this angle, so throughout this study we'll look at that, but we'll start with um Corinthian 1 Corinthians 7 14. Paul says something that's really interesting, and so I'm just gonna read the passage. 1 Corinthians 7 10 through 16 actually says, To the married I give this charge, not I, but the Lord. The wife should not be separate from her husband, but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband, and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say, I not the Lord, that if any brother was a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace, and for how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband, or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? So what do you guys think about that, and what do you think he's talking about? I know one thing I notice right away is that he says it's his charge. This isn't the Lord's command, but Paul seems to have this view that this baby, especially, he seems to think that the baby's holy in this situation. Where do you think his line of thought is on that? Anybody have any ideas?

Speaker 4 2:40

It's deep. It is deep. No thoughts? Thinking?

Speaker 3 2:47

I would say one thing, and that is that when Paul states that the unsafe spouse is holy, uh you can look at it a lot of ways, but a number of years ago I did a little study on this, and it really came around to me anyway. What they're saying is if you're married to someone who's an unbeliever, don't separate yourself from them if they want to stay with you, because the environment that you offer them is a holy environment. So Paul was saying, this is what I'm thinking. I'm thinking it's better to have that person exposed in a in a commitment to someone who's following me, than for you to cut the ties with that person and have them go someplace else. Yep. Where we don't know. So uh it gives a lovely picture of grace in that you give the opportunity for a person to live in an atmosphere of grace.

Speaker 1 3:46

That's good. Yeah, I like that. Yeah, I was thinking along the lines, Paul being Jewish, it definitely falls in along the lines of a Christian Jewish thinking and just his views. We got to realize these guys were Jewish, and so they had a certain mindset about the Lord, and obviously the way the Lord was dealing with people dramatically shifted in the new covenant. But yeah, I totally agree with that, and that's that was well said. So what about the child being unclean or holy? That's that's that's where it gets kind of interesting. You're like, so what would make it unclean? It's interesting that he uses that word, unclean. I think it really just goes in line of what you said, Jack, because it's no longer getting that holy environment. I guess my reason for looking at the passage was did Paul see a child in this environment as holy in some way, in some sense that God would see favor on it.

Speaker 3 4:39

Well, look at divorce today and how conflicted children are, just by the fact that there's a divorce. Nothing to do with anything other than two personalities splitting and ripping apart a home, and a safe environment for a child. And the child is therefore confused. You know, they can be confused very easily because now it's home isn't home anymore. Now they have two homes, now they have two moms and two dads or whatever it is, and they live in that environment, and the world is trying to say that's normal.

Speaker 1 5:12

Not to interject, but two different belief systems now, too. Yeah, it can be, yeah, whatever it is. Well, in this case, it would be because if you if they got divorced and said, You're not a Christian, I'm divorcing you, now you have two different belief systems added on top of what you just said. Exactly right.

Speaker 3 5:28

And that's what I was going to go back to is the fact that this has a premise of faith at some point in that home, at some place. So in the wisdom of what I was saying, you can really see that he was a he was trying to say, listen, the environment that that child is going to be in is no longer one that gives exposure unless they stay together. Let's say mom's an unbeliever and dad's a believer. At least in that case, they decide to stay together. That child will learn faith from the dad. But he'll also learn family from the fact that they're together. It doesn't mean that they hate each other, right? It doesn't mean that the husband and wife are so set in the now. I've been in situations where that seems to evolve. But more times than not, I'm just gonna say this too. Most times in that type of environment, the true gospel has not been shared. And it's been a conditional gospel that has torn that family apart. Because Jesus is not offensive in that situation. He's not offensive. I mean, if I came to you and if I came to my first, you know, you get married and all that stuff, and one person comes home and says to his wife, listen, I just I met Jesus. He's forgiven me all my sins, I'm a new creation, and I'm going to live forever with him, and I'm no longer under condemnation. Would you like to join me? I mean, that's it. None of this, you've got to go to church on Sunday, none of that stuff. Just I have a relationship. Would you like to join in an everlasting relationship with me? What a difference. I mean, who would say no? But the world has tainted that with all this religious rules and speculations that make it seem like Christianity is something you don't want to bear. But the truth of the gospel is everybody wants it. It's available to everyone. Everyone wants the free gift of God that was given for us. Even if somebody says, I don't want it now, that's fine. But if they think it through, if they really think it through, there's nothing offensive in living forever and being forgiven. You wouldn't think. You wouldn't know. I and I know.

Speaker 1 7:39

It doesn't seem like they want it.

Speaker 3 7:42

Right. It's not logical from the from our spiritual perspective. It's not logical. But there are lots of people that say, no, I don't want that Visa stuff. But many times it is the result of the lack of knowledge of what the gospel really is.

Speaker 1 7:57

Yeah, I 100% agree. I think mainstream Christianity has kind of ruined it for a lot of unbelievers because they have a bad perception of what it actually is.

Speaker 3 8:07

Definitely. Over the years, I've seen so many people where, especially the wife is a believer and the husband is not, or they believe that he's not, in most cases. The wife is at church on Sunday morning, she teaches Sunday school, she's there Wednesday nights, she goes and cleans the church on Saturday afternoon, she's also secretary of the board, and she wonders why her husband isn't interested in being a Christian. And she's never home.

Speaker 8:32

When they talk about the children and not the divorce and to stay together even though one is and one isn't, at least the children are getting some exposure, and so is the wife to religion. So it's basically a learning curve. It's better to try and have a little bit of faith, even though you don't believe in it, than to have none at all. In other words, you could turn even worse to the wrong side. Pretty much.

Speaker 1 9:01

Definitely, yeah. Yep. And in the context of Paul's writing, too, we see that Christianity didn't exist prior to them. And so you have all these people that were living their lives a certain way, and now all of a sudden they find themselves believing in Jesus and married to an unbeliever. Very different than the world we live in today, like in America, where almost everybody's heard of Jesus in some sense. Peter had written in the same effect about women and men being already married. It would have been a new thing at that time, but it still applies today very much. Jesus is telling people not to yoke with unbelievers, so obviously their Lord had said that. So I think there a lot of this is clearing up that confusion, obviously, because they're like, well, you know, Jesus said not to yoke. I'm found myself married to this person, what do I do? You know, that would have been a big question in the church in those days. They didn't have the opportunity to marry a believer. They had already married before they became a believer, so now they found themselves in this situation. So it's kind of different than the advice, should I marry an unbeliever? Yeah. This is people that found themselves in that situation by circumstance. Alright, so on the lines of the babies again, why did God command Israel to circumcise their babies? We know it was a covenant made, a bloodshedding sacrifice, such as that Jesus made, and also that circumcision was commanded to Abraham before the Mosaic Law. But what was the point? You know, what do you think the primary point of circumcision was? You have a lot of views on this. You know, some people are like, oh, it's the health aspects to reduce infection, but others say that's barbaric. You know, it's a mutilation. Why do you think that God had them do it to babies? Uh, you know, is it something to do with marking them as holy, or is it just something altogether different? What do you guys think about that?

Speaker 2 10:50

That's a good question.

Speaker 10:52

I mean, they didn't have modern medicine back then, but there still could have been things that happen that don't get recorded, and maybe there was a lot of problems with it because it's not a clean situation. Well, the way they were living back then. It ain't like you had showers and baths.

Speaker 1 11:10

A lot of people say it that way. That is a theory, but at the same time, a lot of people just argue that now um it has nothing to do with that. But one thing that I see for certain is that it was something that set them apart and it was an act of faith. It set Israel apart. Why men only? I don't know. Uh why babies, you know.

Speaker 2 11:32

There would have been a lot of public they probably publicly bathed, right? You'd go down to the lake, and so it'd be really evident if you were circumcised or not.

Speaker 1 11:42

It had to have been pretty evident because it was like a big deal.

Speaker 2 11:45

It'd be quite a display of something different going on in that person's life, right?

Speaker 3 11:50

Mm-hmm. Yeah. And and you can spiritualize it a little bit in that what God was saying, first of all, we know that the baby's coagulation for the eighth day is the highest. So when a child was circumcised on the eighth day, the coagulation factor in their blood was at its highest point. So it would actually heal at fastest on that day. Isn't that awesome? Yeah, I that's a that isn't that's pretty awesome. In line with that, also the circumcision from us from New Covenant believers shows a beautiful picture of us discarding the flesh in our lives. That extra flesh that's really not useful at all. Take it away. We don't need it. God was saying it well in advance that a child who lives a spiritual upbringing will reflect that spiritual upbringing. If we go into scripture and we say, raise up a child in a way he should go, and when he's older he will not depart from it. Remember that. It wasn't the whole story, but it's a beautiful picture, I think.

Speaker 1 12:54

That is that I enjoy of the reality to come. You know, the circumcision of the heart. So we definitely see a type and an anti-type going on here. The type being physical circumcision, the anti-type being the circumcision of the heart in Christ.

Speaker 13:08

Exactly. Was Jesus circumcised?

Speaker 1 13:11

Yeah, on the eighth day. And he was also dedicated, and then, you know, there's there's actually a whole slew of things going on when they dedicated Jesus as a baby, right? They had to pay a fee, like was it five shekels in order to redeem the baby? And that goes all the way back to what the Passover and the firstborns being killed. I mean, it's it's deep stuff when you start looking into it. But then Mary, you know, was also purifying herself from the childbirth. There was a lot going on there. That was another thing I was considering bringing up. I'm like, it's gonna take some time to go deep into that.

Speaker 3 13:47

But it's look at Anna. Yeah, look at everything else that happened in the temple all around that. Oh, the people recognized who he was, and just of the beauty of the fact he happened to be going into the temple or be brought into the temple and he was circumcised, but the repercussions, not because of the circumcision, but because of his presence. Yes. Was magnified. Yes.

Speaker 1 14:12

It seems like there must be at least some link to an idea that babies from God's holy people were in a sense made holy by dedicating them faithfully to the Lord according to his laws. They had at least committed to raising the child in the ways of the Lord, right? There was a conscious commitment of faith there going on.

Speaker 3 14:30

Yeah. And we see that in the way that the people of Israel were admonished, as far as the law was concerned, how to rehearse it with their children when they get up before they go to bed, put frontlets on their forehead. You know, all those things that are beautiful pictures for new covenant believers of the presence of God's word in our life and the evidence of the life that comes from his word, not the written word, the logos.

Speaker 1 15:00

Yes. But I mean, if we're gonna stretch that into all babies of Israel are saved, we still have a glaring problem because God's holy people were the spiritual, the faithful. The true Israel was spiritual Israel, not all of Israel. Right, these things are a shadow. We're gaining a clear picture of like we we want to dedicate these children to something holy. You know, Samuel was dedicated by his mother to the Lord. Dedications are very holy, but it you don't see anywhere in scripture where there's like an automatic salvation for all babies on the note of automatic, all babies saved, it doesn't answer those questions, but when we start studying, we learn a lot of good stuff. What's good and holy, you know, on our part.

Speaker 3 15:44

So I guess one thing we should clarify is does holy mean saved?

Speaker 1 15:50

Exactly. Because otherwise, all of the nation of Israel would have been saved all along. And they I think they kind of thought that. I think that was their attitude. We of the law, we're saved.

Speaker 3 16:00

Yeah. And holy meaning, in its true sense, that apart, they were holy, but they weren't redeemed. Yes. Is that right? I mean, is that what we'd say? They were holy, but they weren't redeemed. So is that the same case with the child today who's holy but not redeemed? I think so. Yeah. I mean it sounds to me like it makes sense. Yeah. I think one of the major problems that arises when we talk of things like children and other situations like that is that we worry that uh a God would destroy something like that. So we try to make excuses as to what he would actually do to justify the fact that we can't fathom the idea that a child with a disability would go to hell. We wrestle with that as humans, as people, not new creation people, because they understand something that the world does not, and that is that we're fully engaged with our creator. And so we don't have to try to second guess who he is, because we're fully engaged with him. We are one with him in retrospect as we think about it. So we're given that opportunity to trust him. You know, the potter in the clay is a great story if we don't put any bounds on it. But a lot of times we like to say, well, this pot was a little tipped, and you know what, he's not gonna destroy it or whatever, he's not gonna make it new or whatever. The point was not whether the pot was good or the pot was bad. The point was that it's all in the hands of the creator. Amen. I mean, it's awesome. It gets me cold chills sometimes when I think of it, but it's so true. Our existence is so much bigger than one question. Like, would God do that? I mean, what kind of question is that? Would God do that? Yeah. He's gonna do it anyway. It makes no difference. Whatever he does, he's gonna do it. He's not looking for my opinion. Is he looking for your opinion? I don't think so, right? I think our greatest challenge is to be aware of that depth of relationship that we have with our Father, that we can actually have conversation with him, not us putting ourselves in a place to speak to him, but us being in a place where we can commune with him.

Speaker 1 18:20

That's like our priesthood, you know. I have some things to touch on with that, that'll be fun. Unless you had something to finish about that. I was gonna talk a little bit about dedicating versus baptizing babies. Wanna go on to that? Oh, let's dive into that. That's fun. Okay. So I have a little bit of stuff I pulled up. The origins of Christian baptism are found in a Hebrew ritual purification called mikvah. Mikvah. Does that sound right, Jack? I think you know a little bit of the language.

Speaker 3 18:51

I would say, yeah. So you can actually pronounce either way, but you know, it's like if somebody from Long Island, they said Nicemah.

Speaker 1 18:58

Yeah. So the Jews washed thoroughly before walking naked into 150 gallons of water connected to a natural spring, where people would say a prayer and submerge themselves to make themselves pure. So then John the Baptist, he's baptizing people in the Jordan River. He was a son of the priest Zechariah. This would imply that John should have been following his Levitical line of priesthood and leading ceremonial cleansing in the temple. But instead, he prepared people to be permanently cleansed in a dirty river instead of fresh water in the mikvah. When John baptizes Jesus, the one without the need of cleansing, he completely shifts the meaning of baptism for the first century followers of Jesus. As soon as Jesus was baptized, God says, This is my beloved son, with whom I'm well pleased. In the scriptures we see a few plain examples of ritual purification. We have this national purification in Exodus 19, where before God spoke to the Israelites from Sinai, he commanded them to consecrate themselves, wash their clothes, and be ruddy by the third day, when he would appear to them. And then we have a priestly consecration in Leviticus 8. At the consecration of the priests, Moses brought Aaron and his sons forward and washed them with water. And then we have this individual version where Leviticus 14, a person who had recovered from an unclean skin disease had to wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and bathe with water to be ceremonially clean. So we know that John was told to baptize that the Messiah would be revealed. He'd be the one whom the Spirit of God would descend upon like a dove. But I think what we see here can be interpreted as a consecration of our great high priest. As the author of Hebrews states, Jesus was high priest in the order of Melchizedek. This was a priesthood predating the Levitical line of priests appointed to national Israel. We're seeing a change of priesthood taking place at the baptism of Jesus. And this is a big deal. The author of Hebrews calls Jesus our great high priest eleven times in his writing. Jesus did not need to be purified in any way. So his baptism must symbolize his priestly ministry. The cool thing about this is that every Christian who believes and is saved becomes a priest as well in Christ. And in the Old Testament, we see that the Spirit was only given to a select amount of people and that select times. It wasn't just simply given to the general population. Israel had to do everything through their priests. But then in 1 Peter, we read, But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness, into his marvelous light. And then Paul writes in Romans twelve one I appeal to you, therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies to the As a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. In light of all this, can't you just picture water baptism as like a public commitment to your priesthood now, as a believer that you have? It's a symbol of a spiritual reality. Now God's saying to you, This is my son who I'm very well pleased. I think that's pretty cool. The parallels with baptism and why Jesus might have been baptized. That does that make sense to you guys? I thought that was pretty cool. The Melchizedekian priesthood is very fascinating.

Speaker 2 22:35

That is really neat. I've never thought of baptism that way.

Speaker 1 22:41

But in light of this, does that sound like anything you would apply to an infant?

Speaker 3 22:47

Ah, good point.

Speaker 2 22:48

Sounds like a decision you make when you can comprehend a little better.

Speaker 1 22:53

Yeah, a celebration.

Speaker 2 22:54

Yeah.

Speaker 1 22:55

Um, yeah. It it just sounds way too much to be just saying that I'm doing this with the infant. It doesn't really line up, does it? It doesn't really make any sense in my opinion.

Speaker 2 23:06

What do you think the dirty water was about?

Speaker 1 23:09

Well, it just was dirty water. It wasn't this purified water, you know.

Speaker 2 23:13

Because Jesus didn't need to be purified. It was just a change of priesthood.

Speaker 1 23:18

Yeah.

Speaker 2 23:18

John was leaving.

Speaker 1 23:19

John was Levite, right? John would have been from the Levite line, and he's ushering in the new priesthood in the Order of Melchizedek. Jesus Christ. It's a change of priesthood. I know David Curtis from the Brian Bible Church, uh, just a phenomenal message on the Melchizedekian priesthood, if you guys ever want to look it up. He should be in your uh, you know, I it's not like I agree with him on everything. We probably clash on grace, but he does some excellent work when it comes to scripture. And the Melchizedekian priesthood message he did, a two-part series, it blew my mind. It's really cool.

Speaker 2 23:54

So that was more what John was saying, the one who comes after me.

Speaker 1 23:59

Yeah, it all ties in.

Speaker 2 24:01

It's not just that he's that we're to the people were to listen to Christ, they were, but he was also going to be the priest in place of John.

Speaker 1 24:09

Yes.

Speaker 2 24:10

Right?

Speaker 1 24:11

Yeah, yeah. We're kind of looking at it in the terms of an infant baptism, and it just doesn't fit, in my opinion. That that kind of a celebration just doesn't fit. And in Acts 2.38, you know, a lot of people use this as a support for baptizing children in scripture. They say, Oh, well, you gotta look at Acts 2.38, and then another one in Acts 16. In Acts 2.38, we read, well, he says earlier in Acts 2.39, I actually wrote this down wrong. He says, You and your families go and get baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Right? And so people use that passage, but one verse before that he says, Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus, for the forgiveness of sins. So can an infant repent? Repent is a change of mind, according to Scripture. So can an infant change their mind? No. Well, therefore it doesn't really fit, does it? Infant baptism seems kind of out of context. And another passage that's often used is Acts 16, 29. And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. And they spoke the word of the Lord to him, and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them, and he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. I don't understand why somebody would use this for infant baptism, because I'm not seeing it. Because where do we see infants celebrating with Paul and Silas?

Speaker 4 25:56

Yay, I've been saved.

Speaker 1 25:58

I mean, how would it just doesn't really fit. But I do think one that is a more convincing argument than any of them would be more like the dedication, even maybe a convincing argument about infants being saved. It's more convincing, I still don't agree with it about all babies being saved, but this is convincing, if anything is. In Matthew 19, 13 through 15, you know, we read Jesus, and we talked about this last time briefly. People started bringing their babies to Jesus. They brought him to them that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And the disciples rebuked the people. But Jesus said, Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them and went away. So what do you think that was all about? Why are they bringing their babies to Jesus to be blessed in this way, and then he goes ahead and does it? What do you think took place there? You think this was salvation? A lot of people use this as a universal infant salvation, but one of the problems I see there is that why would they be bringing their babies to Jesus to be blessed if they were somehow just going to be automatically saved? And why wouldn't Jesus have clarified that? Don't bring them to me. I don't need to bless them. They're all saved. Every infant that's ever been, right? So it's still again, we find like no support. We just end up coming up blank and have to see it exactly the way Jack said it. Has always been my conclusion. We gotta see it that way through grace. But I had something from MacArthur, if you guys want to hear it, that I thought was pretty interesting his take on it. He's a strong advocate for babies are all saved. And I gotta question motives when people are that popular. Are they doing it, you know, for money? I could make a lot of money on this book, kind of thing. But all bias aside, he lays out an interesting argument. He says uh children here is padia, just a general word, but Luke uses the word briefos, that's babies, infants, sucklings, little children. We're talking perhaps up to three or four. That's who we have here in view, according to MacArthur's saying this. Where are all the souls of all those children that have died? This is the passage that more than any answers that question, and I think it answers it very, very clearly. What we see here is the Lord blessing these little children, and God doesn't bless those who are cursed. And Jesus never pronounced a blessing on any other than a person who belonged to his kingdom. This is a very unique situation where our Lord blesses little children. Now, this runs in face of the apostate Judaism that dominated the land of Israel at the time because the Jews were convinced that you earned your way to heaven. You earned your way to heaven by good works. Children couldn't do that. They couldn't accomplish good works, they couldn't do good works, they didn't know the difference between good and evil, righteousness and unrighteousness. They were therefore not even to be considered as viable in discussions of the kingdom of God. And I think it's against that background that our Lord does something here that is absolutely shocking. And it's shocking not only to the crowd that is watching, and the Pharisees who were in the crowd, but it's even shocking to the disciples, who have imbided that Pharisaic legalistic system to the degree that they see children as irrelevant to spiritual life, eternal life in the kingdom. And so this violates the conventional wisdom. Jesus identifying people as a part of his kingdom who couldn't do anything to enter it to gain it. It then becomes for us a powerful illustration that salvation is by grace. There may not be a more powerful illustration of salvation by grace than this. And I agree with all that, but somehow he turns that all into um the conclusion that all infants are saved. And people were taken people to Jesus to be healed. Were all people healed? The people that were taken to Jesus were healed. So I'm not sure where that argument turns into that, but I do I do think that what he wrote there was pretty good.

Speaker 3 30:04

I throw this out there. A child grows up to be three or four years old. If they should perish before that time, they go to heaven. Yep. A child is six years old, he was clean until he got to four years old, and then the door closed, and he had to make a choice. Because if he died at five years old, according to this thought, he won't gain heaven. Mm-hmm. That's the thought that MacArthur gives, right?

Speaker 1 30:35

Yeah, yeah, that that would um be the end all solution. I don't know about the exact age. I didn't read into the entire extent of it, but as you say that, it freaks me out a little because you can imagine what people are thinking.

Speaker 3 30:49

Well, if you're four, if you're four years old and and three weeks, four years old in a a week, you know, is there a gray area there?

Speaker 1 30:59

Yeah, and then what are people to think about, well, what if this kid grows up to be an unbeliever? Should we just secure this right now?

Speaker 3 31:08

Yeah, I mean he's like insulated for a little while, and then anything can happen.

Speaker 1 31:13

And I can imagine a doctrine like that might have been produced to make people want to sacrifice their babies in ancient times.

Speaker 3 31:21

Oh, yeah, yeah. That's that's a great point. That's a that's a great point. You don't have to worry about their death or even abortion. You don't have to worry about that because hey, it's holy. Hey, they don't have to worry about they're holy, yeah. It's a good thing you're doing. Mm-hmm.

Speaker 1 31:38

And on another note, yet, you have a believer turned into an unbeliever. Where do you see that in scripture? Or you have a salvation being lost because the infant lost it at four years old. It's just a twist that you can't put on scripture. No matter how convenient and nice you make it sound, it doesn't fit. And it ruins other parts of scripture because you take that to its logical conclusion as you just did, Jack, and you're just like, okay, this does not work.

Speaker 3 32:04

It's just uh interesting thought about that. And I think a lot of it has to do with sin, with what people think sin is. Because what they're saying is if a child, are we born in sin? Well, that thought says, no, we're not born in sin because we're set aside, we're holy, we're gonna go to heaven if we die. So the spin on sin really uh affects it. Because what you're saying is at some point in time that child, after that whatever period, is going to separate himself from God by his action or his thought.

Speaker 1 32:40

Yeah, and that's not what original sin is. Original is based on behavior.

Speaker 3 32:45

I think exactly right because sin is not embedded in us, sin is a power. So that changes things quite a lot when you think about what the reality of that is. That's another topic for another time, I'm sure. But my point is that there's more to it than having a line. I grew up this way. I grew up with people saying, listen, when you're able to make up your mind, you're able to get saved. And that was sort of a sort of a Baptist-y thing, I think. I mean, I wasn't a Baptisty, I was a Methodist-e, but I sort of think it came from that persuasion, Wesleyan Methodist side. Where that makes it easy. And then if anything happens up until the point of time you make your decision, uh, we're just gonna say you're in heaven. That makes it easier. So I mean, I don't necessarily hold to that totally, but I'm just saying that was the comfort that I had in you and baby as I was growing up. But as I matured and realized there's a whole lot of stuff going on there, you sort of have to think it through, and the only way to reason it is balanced on the back of God's grace. You know, really, I mean you if we can blow up our heads thinking about it, but but the reality is it is grace. It is where it's going to be.