Bible Study ARE WE BORN WITH A SIN NATURE

[GodsGrace]

cont'd

for_his_glory

Then you said this (all in post no. 133)

7. I disagree. In conception there is no sin until one is brought into a sinful world where the nature to sin begins.

HOW does the nature begin to sin?
WHAT causes us to commit the first sin that creates in us the sin nature?

 

[WIP]

It didn't develop in Adam, but through his disobedience to God's command as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Romans 5:12.

But now we're back to my first question. If Adam was created perfect or very good and totally without sin then what caused him to sin? Satan didn't cause him to sin. Satan only presented the temptation but Adam in all his righteousness should have easily overcome that temptation shouldn't he?

 

[stovebolts]

FHG,

I don't think you are reading Ps 51:5 correctly as it states we are 'sinful from the time my mother conceived me'. Conception is the start of my sinful nature.

Therefore, I sin because I have a sin nature from conception or original sin.

Oz

Oz,
With respect, there is no we in Psalms 51:5. David is referencing his parents sexual act.
Deuteronomy 23:3. No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.
Ruth was a Moabite and this caused great distress with Jesse. As a result, David was an outcast in his own family which explains why he was tending the flock alone and when Samuel had to press Jesse so hard to discover he had another son.

Does the Bible mention David’s mother? | GotQuestions.org

Does the Bible mention David’s mother? Who was the mother of King David? Why doesn’t the Bible mention David’s mother?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[WIP]

You are arguing from silence when not a word is stated in the context that Jesus was speaking of Jewish children. Do you know what that is called?

But I don't believe it is totally an argument from silence if I understand what that means since, as I pointed out, the Scriptures gave us some clues in verse 1 of chapter 19 in Matthew when it said they were in the region of Judea. Was that not the southern kingdom which resulted from the split between Judah and Israel and were they not primarily all Jews?

1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.
2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.
Matthew 19:1-2, 13-15 NKJV

 

[Who Me]

Oz,
With respect, there is no we in Psalms 51:5. David is referencing his parents sexual act.
Deuteronomy 23:3. No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.
Ruth was a Moabite and this caused great distress with Jesse. As a result, David was an outcast in his own family which explains why he was tending the flock alone and when Samuel had to press Jesse so hard to discover he had another son.

Does the Bible mention David’s mother? | GotQuestions.org

Does the Bible mention David’s mother? Who was the mother of King David? Why doesn’t the Bible mention David’s mother?

www.gotquestions.org

What strange genetics ran in David's family.
Bias Father and six brothers were not descended from Ruth only the youngest son David.

Edit by Stovebolts. Use profanity again and you'll find yourself on vacation.

Every member of that family was descended from Ruth, if David was an outcast then so was his Father and his brothers.

 

[GodsGrace]

But now we're back to my first question. If Adam was created perfect or very good and totally without sin then what caused him to sin? Satan didn't cause him to sin. Satan only presented the temptation but Adam in all his righteousness should have easily overcome that temptation shouldn't he?

LOL
You're not gonna give up are you???
Did you see my post no. 112?

You can ask for_his_glory this question, but her
answers will NOT satisfy you....because there is no answer.

We've been through this before...
Accept it!

 

[for_his_glory]

cont'd

for_his_glory

Then you said this (all in post no. 133)

7. I disagree. In conception there is no sin until one is brought into a sinful world where the nature to sin begins.

HOW does the nature begin to sin?
WHAT causes us to commit the first sin that creates in us the sin nature?

We are all born with a nature to sin because of the fall of Adam in whom sin entered into the world as we are born of flesh and flesh has that capacity to sin as that is it's nature now by one man in whom sin entered into the world, Romans 5:12.

The nature to sin begins at birth when we are made living souls through the breath God breathes in us, only when we are born as in conception we have no breath. Our soul is the natural part of our thinking, feeling and acting from the time we are born into this world.

We are also born of flesh being carnal and separate from the Spirit of God and not subject to His laws, Romans 8:7, 8. This is why Psalms 58:3 says the wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

The nature of the flesh (sin nature) activates at birth as a child acts on their impulses. A baby doesn't have the thinking skills to purposefully defy their parents, but does exert control over what is their own world. This is an act of defiance from birth to around three years being part of their development. A baby learns from the environment it is brought up in and in many cases will not depart from what it has been taught by the words and actions of their parents. That is why a child needs Godly nourishment from birth so they will not turn away from God.

Proverbs 22:6 says, Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

[for_his_glory]

But now we're back to my first question. If Adam was created perfect or very good and totally without sin then what caused him to sin? Satan didn't cause him to sin. Satan only presented the temptation but Adam in all his righteousness should have easily overcome that temptation shouldn't he?

You would have thought Adam would have been obedient to God's command, especially internally. But, yet we also know that Satan is very cunning and father of lies as his is an external evil influence causing the lust of the flesh as making evil things enticing to partake of.

What caused Adam to sin is that even though he was created as a perfect specimen of a man and made in the image of God's love, God looked upon that of what He created as the created formation of Adam was good in God's sight. Adam was also created as a mortal man, not Spiritual, but also given freewill. Adam and Eve were both instructed by God to not eat of the tree, but yet it was the mortal part of them that was enticed by the lust of the eye through the cunningness of the serpent Satan worked through as they both chose to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Going back and reading Genesis 3 again Adam and Eve were both told by God to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but now that their sin was found by God we see Adam blaming the woman and the woman blaming the serpent and God punishing all three of them.

 

[for_his_glory]

Sorry FHG,,,I didn't see the answer.

OK.
So if a 3 year old can sin...
what happens if he dies?
He cannot know to accept Jesus..
so he goes to hell?

Sorry for the stark question...
but why beat around the bush?

Not beating around the bush, but only giving my views on this. Like I said, scripture gives no absolutes on this. I can only speculate if God commands children and sucklings to be killed I can only see them as the same enemies of God as their parents are.

 

[WIP]

You would have thought Adam would have been obedient to God's command, especially internally. But, yet we also know that Satan is very cunning and father of lies as his is an external evil influence causing the lust of the flesh as making evil things enticing to partake of.

What caused Adam to sin is that even though he was created as a perfect specimen of a man and made in the image of God's love, God looked upon that of what He created as the created formation of Adam was good in God's sight. Adam was also created as a mortal man, not Spiritual, but also given freewill. Adam and Eve were both instructed by God to not eat of the tree, but yet it was the mortal part of them that was enticed by the lust of the eye through the cunningness of the serpent Satan worked through as they both chose to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Going back and reading Genesis 3 again Adam and Eve were both told by God to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but now that their sin was found by God we see Adam blaming the woman and the woman blaming the serpent and God punishing all three of them.

This has me thinking. I've said elsewhere that Jesus' comment that heaven is for those such as children could be pointing to their faith example in how they fully trust in and depend on their parents for everything. Children are also naive and therefore easily swayed. Do you suppose the same can be said for Adam and Eve? They fell victim to Satan's deception because of their naivety?

 

[GodsGrace]

Not beating around the bush, but only giving my views on this. Like I said, scripture gives no absolutes on this. I can only speculate if God commands children and sucklings to be killed I can only see them as the same enemies of God as their parents are.

So the O.T. conflicts with the N.T.?
Jesus was wrong about heaven being filled with those LIKE CHILDREN?

The O.T. does present a lot of problems, doesn't it?

And you believe we are IMPUTED with Adam's sin?

If the N.T. does not make this clear,,,then the Early theologians did...
The Early Fathers were taught by Apostles....what did THEY believe?
Here's an example:

Original Sin – Early Church Fathers (lll)

• Jack Heppner, Author
• Retired Educator

As I have shown in the previous two essays, John E. Toews makes a strong case in this book, The Story of Original Sin, that the doctrine of original sin as taught in many churches is not supported by the biblical text. The logical place to search for its origin, then, is in the writings of the early church fathers.

We begin with the Eastern Church fathers because they spoke and wrote in Greek, the language of the New Testament. Toews notes that it was the middle of the second century before a “post-Paul” reference to Genesis 3 appears in the writings of the Eastern Church fathers. That would seem to indicate that while the church was expanding rapidly during its first century the concept of original sin was not part of its message.

When Justin Martyr references Adam’s role in introducing sin into the world (165 CE), he takes pains to say that all subsequent humans are responsible for their own sins, as was Adam. Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons held the view that Adam and Eve sinned because of their mental and spiritual immaturity, but even so that had been their free choice.

Clement and Origen of Alexandria later added the idea that Genesis 3 should be interpreted allegorically in which Adam represents all humans; that is to say that all people sinned, “not so much from nature as from Adam’s example” (57).

The Antiochene fathers took a more Hebraic approach to biblical interpretation than the more Hellenistic approach of the Alexandrian fathers. They believed that “…infants were born without sin, and thus did not recognize any doctrine of inherited sinfulness” (60).

In summarizing the view of Eastern Church fathers, Toews states that “…the Greek fathers taught that humanity inherited Adam’s punishment, death, but not Adam’s guilt. Guilt could only be the result of a freely committed personal act” (60). He also notes that “The early Greek Christian theological emphasis on free will and human accountability was a deliberate counter to the various forms of determinism and fatalism of much classical religion and philosophy from the time of Homer through the era of the Roman Empire” (61).

source: https://www.mysteinbach.ca/blogs/7138/original-sin-early-church-fathers-lll/

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,
With respect, there is no we in Psalms 51:5. David is referencing his parents sexual act.
Deuteronomy 23:3. No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.
Ruth was a Moabite and this caused great distress with Jesse. As a result, David was an outcast in his own family which explains why he was tending the flock alone and when Samuel had to press Jesse so hard to discover he had another son.

Does the Bible mention David’s mother? | GotQuestions.org

Does the Bible mention David’s mother? Who was the mother of King David? Why doesn’t the Bible mention David’s mother?

www.gotquestions.org

StoveBolts,

I agree that Psalm 51 addresses David's grievous sin, but what he stated in Ps 51:5 agrees with other OT verses that state the sin nature applies to all who are 'born of a woman'.

These are some examples:

• 'The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: ‘Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done' (Gen 8:21 NIV).
• 'Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!' (Job 14:4 NIV).
• 'What are mortals, that they could be pure, or those born of woman, that they could be righteous?' (Job 15:14 NIV)
• 'How then can a mortal be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure?' (Job 25:4 NIV)
• 'Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far away' (Prov 22:15 NIV).
• 'The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: ‘Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done' (Gen 8:21 NIV).
• 'Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies' (Ps 58:3 NIV).

You'll find it tough to try to convince me that all children are not born with a sin nature - based on the OT evidence.

Oz

 

[for_his_glory]

Above you are also answering my post to y ou just before this one...(about a 3 year old sinning).

So let's take one item at a time and see what we come up with:

Wondering:
5. Disagree. Adam's sin was not handed down to each generation. He and he alone was responsible for his sin. The EFFECT of his sin was handed down to every generation after him. That EFFECT IS the sin nature.


ForHisGlory:
5. by one man (Adam), sin entered into the world, Romans 5:12

If you notice it says that SIN entered the world.
Do you find a difference between:
SIN
SINNING

For instance, the difference could be found in 1 John....
1 John 1:8-9 IF we say we have no SIN....If we confess our SINS...
these are sins...we commit sins every day for which we ask forgiveness.

1 John 3:9 ... No one born of God PRACTICES SIN...this is living in sin...sinning.

Now, the question is this....even though we are born again...we do not LIVE IN SIN,
however, WE STILL SIN.

What do you believe makes us sin?
The N.T. tells us that it is our sin nature
John 3:19-20
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.



Romans 5:14-17
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

NO ONE has sinned like Adam sinned.
HE sinned for all mankind..being the head of mankind.
WE, OTOH, sin only for ourselves.
I am not responsible for your sins,,,
but Adam IS responsible for our sins....

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

We have all sinned, personally, and have fallen short of the glory of God.
Personally is implied in the verse.

Ephesians 2:3
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

See also:

Romans 6:17
For if by the transgression of the one...DEATH reigned THROUGH THE ONE....

Death reigned through Adam.....
No where does it say we are responsible for HIS sin...in fact Romans 5:14 states we did NOT sin as Adam did.

Romans 5:18
...Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men...

Again, Adam's transgression resulted in condemnation.....
it does not say that we are responsible for his sin, but are CONDEMNED because of it...its EFFECTS are upon us.

cont'd

Yes, there is a difference between sin and sinning. One does not become a sinner until they sin for the first time even if they do not recognize sin at first. There is unwillfull sin and willful sin, Hebrews 10:26, 27.

No one that is Spiritually born again would practice sin after they are given truth, but yet we do find ourselves falling short at times. The reason for this is the mortal/flesh (sin nature) part of us will always continue to sin if we are not walking in the Spirit, Galatians 5:16, 17.

Of course we are not responsible for Adam's sin, but only our own. We have all sinned like Adam by being disobedient to God's commands. Adam's sin of disobedience is what has entered into the hearts of everyone being born after him from generation to generation. Adam received one command, Noah was given seven commands, Moses was given 613 commands, but yet mere mortal man can not keep all 613, even the greatest that is love.

Romans 5:14 death reigned from Adam to Moses until God laid out all His commandments and gave them to Moses. Man is no longer without excuse as what the law could not do, Christ came to fulfill that which was in the law so now all who will believe on Him will have eternal life with Him.

Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. (Read the whole chapter that leads up to Paul is saying in these two verses.)

 

[OzSpen]

But I don't believe it is totally an argument from silence if I understand what that means since, as I pointed out, the Scriptures gave us some clues in verse 1 of chapter 19 in Matthew when it said they were in the region of Judea. Was that not the southern kingdom which resulted from the split between Judah and Israel and were they not primarily all Jews?

1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.
2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.
Matthew 19:1-2, 13-15 NKJV

WIP,

You missed highlighting one phrase that is important, 'And great multitudes followed Him'. It doesn't say 'great multitudes who were Jews followed Him'.

I consider you are putting something into the text that is not there.

Of Judea, the Encyclopedia Britannica (Judaea entry) states:

After Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Middle East, Judah came first under the rule of the Ptolemies and later under that of the Seleucids. Opposition to the Seleucid attempt to suppress the Jewish ancestral faith led to the rise of the family of Jewish leaders known as the Maccabees, who gradually drove the Seleucids from the country and set up a revived kingdom of Judaea. Family disputes, however, led to Roman intervention in 63 bc. Under Roman control, Herod the Great was made king of Judaea in 37 bc and later of all Palestine (20–4 bc). After Herod’s death the country was ruled alternately by Herod’s direct descendants and by Roman procurators. As a result of the Jewish revolt that broke out in ad 66, the city of Jerusalem was destroyed (ad 70). The name Judaea is still used to describe approximately the same area in modern Israel.

If this historical information is correct, the area of Judaea in the time of Jesus (ca. 4BC) had other nations/tribes occupying the area.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

ForHisGlory:
5. by one man (Adam), sin entered into the world, Romans 5:12

If you notice it says that SIN entered the world.
Do you find a difference between:
SIN
SINNING

wondering,

What is the difference between 'sin' and 'sinning'?

Oz

 

[for_his_glory]

This has me thinking. I've said elsewhere that Jesus' comment that heaven is for those such as children could be pointing to their faith example in how they fully trust in and depend on their parents for everything. Children are also naive and therefore easily swayed. Do you suppose the same can be said for Adam and Eve? They fell victim to Satan's deception because of their naivety?

I think it is very possible that Adam and Eve were naive as they, like babies, had no knowledge of good and evil. This is why the cunningness of Satan working through the serpent convinced them that they would not actually die, thus they forgot God's command as they allowed themselves to become enticed with the temptation presented before them.

Matthew 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

I can only assume these little children were from Jewish parents as they lived in Judea/Jerusalem. The parents brought there children to Jesus so he could lay hands on them and pray over them.

The kingdom of heaven is for those who are pure of heart as many children are, especially if they are brought before the Lord and prayed over as Christian parents dedicate their babies to the Lord and teach them in His ways starting at birth.

It's those children like the Egyptian's and those of Amalek who along with their parents are destroyed for lack of knowledge as God says He will forget them all, Hosea 4:6.

Do all babies go to be with the Lord when they die, I don't know as there are no absolutes in scripture, but only speculation in our opinions.

 

[stovebolts]

You'll find it tough to try to convince me that all children are not born with a sin nature - based on the OT evidence.

Oz

Hi Oz,
Actually, I wouldn't try to convince you that we are born without a sin nature when I myself agree that we are born with a sin nature.
What I would say, is that using Psalm 51 to support any notion that we are sinful from conception is to grossly misinetrpret those verses.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,
Actually, I wouldn't try to convince you that we are born without a sin nature when I myself agree that we are born with a sin nature.
What I would say, is that using Psalm 51 to support any notion that we are sinful from conception is to grossly misinetrpret those verses.

SB,

I don't think it 'grossly misrepresents' Ps 51:5. How was David conceived? We know his father was Jesse but who was his mother? Was David conceived by his father's and mother's adulterous relationship? What evidence do we have to support this?

See: Did David's mother commit adultery?

Or, have I missed something here?

Oz

 

[for_his_glory]

So the O.T. conflicts with the N.T.?
Jesus was wrong about heaven being filled with those LIKE CHILDREN?

The O.T. does present a lot of problems, doesn't it?

And you believe we are IMPUTED with Adam's sin?

If the N.T. does not make this clear,,,then the Early theologians did...
The Early Fathers were taught by Apostles....what did THEY believe?
Here's an example:

Original Sin – Early Church Fathers (lll)

• Jack Heppner, Author
• Retired Educator

As I have shown in the previous two essays, John E. Toews makes a strong case in this book, The Story of Original Sin, that the doctrine of original sin as taught in many churches is not supported by the biblical text. The logical place to search for its origin, then, is in the writings of the early church fathers.

We begin with the Eastern Church fathers because they spoke and wrote in Greek, the language of the New Testament. Toews notes that it was the middle of the second century before a “post-Paul” reference to Genesis 3 appears in the writings of the Eastern Church fathers. That would seem to indicate that while the church was expanding rapidly during its first century the concept of original sin was not part of its message.

When Justin Martyr references Adam’s role in introducing sin into the world (165 CE), he takes pains to say that all subsequent humans are responsible for their own sins, as was Adam. Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons held the view that Adam and Eve sinned because of their mental and spiritual immaturity, but even so that had been their free choice.

Clement and Origen of Alexandria later added the idea that Genesis 3 should be interpreted allegorically in which Adam represents all humans; that is to say that all people sinned, “not so much from nature as from Adam’s example” (57).

The Antiochene fathers took a more Hebraic approach to biblical interpretation than the more Hellenistic approach of the Alexandrian fathers. They believed that “…infants were born without sin, and thus did not recognize any doctrine of inherited sinfulness” (60).

In summarizing the view of Eastern Church fathers, Toews states that “…the Greek fathers taught that humanity inherited Adam’s punishment, death, but not Adam’s guilt. Guilt could only be the result of a freely committed personal act” (60). He also notes that “The early Greek Christian theological emphasis on free will and human accountability was a deliberate counter to the various forms of determinism and fatalism of much classical religion and philosophy from the time of Homer through the era of the Roman Empire” (61).

source: https://www.mysteinbach.ca/blogs/7138/original-sin-early-church-fathers-lll/

With all due respect to you as my sister in Christ you are taking everything I said and twisting it all around. All I can say is go back and read the OP and all my post from there on. When you jump in the middle of a discussion you miss the beginning parts.

At this point all I am doing is repeating myself trying to answer all your questions. I deal with absolutes of what is written in scripture and there is no absolutes that say all babies go to heaven so I would not even dare to say yes or not on this as only God knows. Even the early church fathers can not agree with each other all the time so I will stick to what has already been written comparing scripture with scripture, OT with NT and let the Holy Spirit help me work it all out.

Please do not take this as me being mean to you or in any other way as you know me better than that. There are things that I agree with you, things I believe to be true, things that have no absolutes and things that are just IMO's. Many of our questions will be only answered when we are caught up to Christ when He returns on the last day, but even then it might not matter anymore.

God bless you sis.

 

[OzSpen]

At this point all I am doing is repeating myself trying to answer all your questions. I deal with absolutes of what is written in scripture and there is no absolutes that say all babies go to heaven so I would not even dare to say yes or not on this as only God knows. Even the early church fathers can not agree with each other all the time so I will stick to what has already been written comparing scripture with scripture, OT with NT and let the Holy Spirit help me work it all out.

FHG,

I'd like to throw in some biblical teaching that may help us to better understand children and hell.

Some ask the honest question, “How can a God of love make eternal hell the punishment for all unbelievers?” Some have committed horrendous crimes and engaged in disgusting immorality, while others have not done that. Is it fair for God to treat all people in hell the same and give them equal punishment?

From the biblical evidence, I'm convinced there are degrees of punishment in hell. Consider this evidence:

1. Since God is “the righteous Judge” (2 Tim. 4:8), we would expect that sinners would be punished according to the extent of their sin. Children fit into this category. This is what the Bible affirms.

2. Matthew 10:14-15 states, “And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town” (ESV).

So it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for those who do not welcome and listen to the apostles. This is an amazing statement: it is going to be fairer for those who committed sexual immorality in Sodom & Gomorrah than for those who rejected the gospel. What is this saying about punishment in hell?

3. A similar affirmation of degrees of punishment can be found in Matthew 11:21-24,

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you” (NIV).

4. Luke 12:47-48 speaks of many blows and few blows:

“And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more” (ESV).

Would this be adequate biblical reasoning to say that the sins of young children are less than for adults and God in his grace and mercy will not punish these children like those who are more depraved?

Oz