Did Adam reach age of responsibility before

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Children are a blessing from the Lord, but sin is a reproach to any people. The last time I checked blessings are still a 'good' thing. :thumbs::godisgood:..AND ALL THE TIME!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

HP: If one happens to choose morally right as opposed to sin, how is that possible if the sin nature causes him to sin? What force makes it possible to overcome the force you say causes him to sin? If it is possible to choose in opposition to ones nature, how can it be said his nature causes him to choose sin??

Is it possible for a human being, not even saved, to make a proper moral choice?( not that it would make a significant change in his over-all moral character) If it is possible, would you conclude that a benevolent force would have to reign in that choice, making it possible for him to overcome a sinful outcome?

Oh I see. I think the reformed perspective of this view (ie Calvin) is that being totally depraved does not prevent one from making a right decision. What is in question is the motiviation of that deed. All Choices for the unregenerate person good and bad will lead to satisfaction of their inherent desire which is always self serving. Motivation then is the difference between the outward act.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thinkingstuff, would not you see that view as inconsistent, establishing the will as unable to do anything but sin, yet somehow being able to make a so called 'choice' not sinful, without also accepting the whole can of worms the Calvinistic system holds to? There can only be one explanation as I can see it, irresistible grace. If that is true it leads to limited atonement and that by necessity would you not agree, for only those that God grants this irresistible force choose something other than sin and as such are the only ones able to come to salvation. Am I making any sense to you?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff, would not you see that view as inconsistent, establishing the will as unable to do anything but sin, yet somehow being able to make a so called 'choice' not sinful, without also accepting the whole can of worms the Calvinistic system holds to? There can only be one explanation as I can see it, irresistible grace. If that is true it leads to limited atonement and that by necessity would you not agree, for only those that God grants this irresistible force choose something other than sin and as such are the only ones able to come to salvation. Am I making any sense to you?

No not necissarily. Think of it this way. A Tsunami kills hundred of thousands of people. Destroying villages and cities causing disease, etc... The fact that a side effect some years later may be that the soil can sustain a productive agriculture does not lessent the fact that the Tsunami incident was a horrible event.

Watching Schindler's list may also give an indicater how this view works. The Prison commander kills people without thought however he is sexually attracted to one Jewess who helps his ego. When the decision is made to let people go he lets this Jew go because it satisfies his need rather than an overall consern about her needs. The act performed would seem one of mercy but in reality was it? Or was it the continuation of massaging this man's inflatted ego? Satan destroyed Job's life but because of it taught Job an invaluable lesson and us. Is Satan in anyway good? no.

 

[BobRyan]

the apple incident?

We punish our young children to teach them, not to extract revenge on them. Young children can commit wrong acts with lasting consequences even though they are to young to understand the concepts of good and evil.

It is annoying when a child states, "He made me do this." Did Adam "Make" God put him out of the Garden?

Adam was not created as a "1 day old infant" or even "a 1 day old zygote".

He was created as a fully mature adult on "day 1" capable of language, taxonomy - (naming animal species), and marriage.

Man was adult "enough" to be "left alone" on planet earth -- such that God would come to him only in the "cool of the evening" to walk and talk with him in perfect harmony, perfect sinless peaceful fellowship.

Man was fully capable of knowing right from wrong - and was "perfect" as God called his creation "good".

Adam did not spend his time running from predators, fighting off rival hominids, living in a cave or hunting and killing those animals that God created.

In Genesiis 1 we are told that man and animals were given a vegetarian diet.

Evolution is simply a fairy tale for atheists.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Johnv]

Adam was not created as a "1 day old infant" or even "a 1 day old zygote". He was created as a fully mature adult on "day 1"...

Actually, we don't know. Scripture doesn't say. He could have been created as an adult, a teen, a child, an elderly man, we have no idea. The reason scripture doesn't say is simple: Because it's not important.

In Genesiis 1 we are told that man and animals were given a vegetarian diet. Evolution is simply a fairy tale for atheists.

When did this become yet another creation vs evolution debate??

 

[BobRyan]

1. The question about Adam and being accountable for sin - is very "different" if you imagine Adam to be "the first ancient hominid with a soul". Thus the point about man and animals eating plants instead of daily killing and eating each other.

2. The scripture says that Adam lived more than 950 years after he was created. It is very doubtful that man was created "as an old man".

Scripture says that "the man" Adam was married to Eve on day 1 -- it is very doubtful that Adam was created as "a child" or a "teen".

So we do know that he was created as an adult - and not as an old man or a teen or a child.

He was created with mature intellectual, emotional and spiritual capabilities for worshipping God - being married, classifying animals, mastering language, able to live on his own on this planet ... etc.

The fate of all mankind was not placed in the hands of a child, not an infant, and not an aging elderly person "one day old". Adam had every advantage and every opportunity to succeed as a sinless, perfect, holy being, created in harmony with God and living in a sinless, deathless paradise on earth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Johnv]

1. The question about Adam and being accountable for sin - is very "different" if you imagine Adam to be "the first ancient hominid with a soul". Thus the point about man and animals eating plants instead of daily killing and eating each other.

I disagree. Whatever Adam did, or whatever was happenning in the Garden, the Sin of Adam was a specific action. It's never bothered me that I needed to know what ate what or all that stuff. We should presume ill of a person if they don't adhere to a "vegans only" view of Gen1.

Scripture says that "the man" Adam was married to Eve on day 1..

Where does it say that? There is nothing in scripture that says how much time there was between Adam's creation and anything that followed. It's not noted, because it's not important.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Sorry Thinkingstuff but I cannot see where your illustrations are relevant to the discussion of a will bound to sin and that continually. You might try and tie them together for me if you still feel they are. Thanks

 

[DHK]

I disagree. Whatever Adam did, or whatever was happenning in the Garden, the Sin of Adam was a specific action. It's never bothered me that I needed to know what ate what or all that stuff. We should presume ill of a person if they don't adhere to a "vegans only" view of Gen1.

Where does it say that? There is nothing in scripture that says how much time there was between Adam's creation and anything that followed. It's not noted, because it's not important.

John it is important.
But it is another subject.
If you like to discuss it please start another thread. I am sure it will generate a lot of interest. But don't derail this thread with a creation/evolution debate. Thanks.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sorry Thinkingstuff but I cannot see where your illustrations are relevant to the discussion of a will bound to sin and that continually. You might try and tie them together for me if you still feel they are. Thanks

I'm not sure what you mean. Here is how I read your question. How can a person bound in sin do good things? Wouldn't the sin nature prevent that? I answered based on my understanding of your question. If that is not what you asked then maybe ask it another way which I can respond.

Total depravity is the condition of man. This does not preclude man from doing a good. Its only a statement of his condition. Man that is totally depraved will do a good deed if it suits his purpose in doing it. That man cannot consieve of a good for the purity of it. That man will only think of it as a means to fulfill his depraved nature's desires.

 

[billwald]

>How can a person bound in sin do good things?

Thru the activity of God's common grace.

Or are you saying that actions are not intrinsically good, neutral, or evil? The goodness of an act depends upon the spiritual state of the actor?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thinkingstuff, let me start over. DHK, and others by the way, presents sinful man as sinful from birth with a nature that can ONLY choose sin necessitating his every move as sinful. I have heard others say sinful man is born and acts like a log floating downstream that cannot do anything other than to go with the current. If such beliefs are true, God must first grant to man the ability to have saving faith and enable him to act upon that faith by granting man the ability to respond to him. It of necessity must be an irresistible calling if it is effective, for again man is powerless apart from God to do anything good, including responding to Gods grace or anything else good for that matter. Are we on the same page so far?

 

[Marcia]

Marcia I will make it easy on you. DHK accuses me of promoting humanism because I stated God created all of my children good. He thinks he knows what humanism is, but just between me and you he need serious help. You don't have to tell him I asked you to comment. It can just be our little secret. :smilewinkgrin:

HP, you and I are not on the same wavelength. I don't see how you can say God created all your children "good." The last time people were created good was before the Fall. If children were created good, they would not fight, they would not say "mine" all the time at age 2, they would not cry to get attention, they would not disobey.

Even before the age of 2, children start disobeying their parents.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

God created my children as infants. He created them with the capacity for moral agency but not in any particular moral state. They were born with physical depravity, depraved tendencies due to depraved sensibilities, but by no fault of their own. They had not made a sinful choice to disobey a known commandment of God, and if they would have died prior to the age of moral accountability they were precisely what God declared as fit candidates for the kingdom of heaven.

In order to be morally blamed, one must understand the intrinsic worth of the command APART FROM punishment or rewards. At age such an early age as two they are merely responding to punishments or rewards, and by no means are capable of understanding the intrinsic value of a command. A child at age two is far from moral agency.

Even our civil laws recognize the age of accountability. If we would consider it unjust to prosecute a two year old for murder, ask yourself why. They are not moral agents Marcia. The have no conception of the intrinsic value of moral commands. It is beyond absurd to consider God declaring them sinful or punishing them for failure to keep His moral law when they simply do not comprehend the intrinsic moral worth of morality period. Again at that age they are operating not by a moral code but rather by the stimuli of punishments or rewards.

 

[Marcia]

God created my children as infants. He created them with the capacity for moral agency but not in any particular moral state. They were born with physical depravity, depraved tendencies due to depraved sensibilities, but by no fault of their own. They had not made a sinful choice to disobey a known commandment of God, and if they would have died prior to the age of moral accountability they were precisely what God declared as fit candidates for the kingdom of heaven.

In order to be morally blamed, one must understand the intrinsic worth of the command APART FROM punishment or rewards. At age such an early age as two they are merely responding to punishments or rewards, and by no means are capable of understanding the intrinsic value of a command. A child at age two is far from moral agency.

Even our civil laws recognize the age of accountability. If we would consider it unjust to prosecute a two year old for murder, ask yourself why. They are not moral agents Marcia. The have no conception of the intrinsic value of moral commands. It is beyond absurd to consider God declaring them sinful or punishing them for failure to keep His moral law when they simply do not comprehend the intrinsic moral worth of morality period. Again at that age they are operating not by a moral code but rather by the stimuli of punishments or rewards.

All are born with a sin nature which renders them unable to be with God unless He imparts his grace. I do believe He does this for infants and young children, but I cannot agree that children are born good.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia, I cannot find one Scripture anywhere that states infants are born with a sin nature. There is absolutely no Scriptural indication that infants need grace imparted by God for sin in order to enter the kingdom. Christ simply stated. Mt 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

God granted to us even more than Scripture to discern truth. God imparted first truths of reason, matters of fact, and truth of immutable justice to also use as guides to discerning truth. To believe that sinners are condemned to an eternal hell through no fault of their own is about the most absurd notion I can think of. To believe that God condemns men for a necessitated nature paints a wicked blight on the character of a Holy and Just God.

To even call sentient beings moral that are necessitated as evil and that from birth is simply absurd. If there is no ability and there is no other possibly other than to do what ones nature necessitates one to do, morality is a chimera, all praise or blame absurd, and again to place such absurdity upon a Just and Loving God is beyond reason.

When evil is said to be necessitate by a sinful nature, responsibility is rendered non–existent. It excuses sin as being unavoidable, like being born with red hair instead of blond, or white skin instead of red skin. Everything within my being and in light of the study of Scripture I have done, places me at direct antipodes with any system of thought that incorporates such a nonsensical notion. If sin is necessitated, sin is not and cannot be a moral in the least. Morality of necessity demands abilities to do something other than what one does under the very same set of circumstances, and that must of necessity incorporate honest choice. Choice NOT to merely “do as one wills” as the Calvinist would claim, but choice to actually be ‘the cause’ of the formed intents and as such responsible for that intent and any subsequent actions. To predicate moral responsibility for necessitated intents and actions makes as much sense to send a rock to an eternal hell for hitting one in the head below, that had on reality been kicked off of a cliff by a donkey.

For morality to be predicated of any choice demands that one has knowledge of the intrinsic value of the command apart from punishments or rewards. No ability or choice? Absolutely impossible to predicate morality of any kind to any subsequent intents or actions.

 

[DHK]

Marcia, I cannot find one Scripture anywhere that states infants are born with a sin nature.

There is no such color as green in the universe either.
In other words if we post Scripture to show you that infants have sin natures, you will deny them, rationalize them away, tell us that they mean something other than what they mean. Let's see if I am right:

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
--David looks into the depths of his soul in this psalm of repentance and speaks of his sin nature, even at the time of conception. From the time of conception onward he says, he was a sinner.

Ver. 5. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity." He is thunderstruck at the discovery of his inbred sin, and proceeds to set it forth. This was not intended to justify himself, but it rather meant to complete the confession. It is as if he said, not only have I sinned this once, but I am in my very nature a sinner. The fountain of my life is polluted as well as its streams. My birth tendencies are out of the square of equity; I naturally lean to forbidden things. Mine is a constitutional disease, rendering my very person obnoxious to thy wrath.

"And in sin did my mother conceive me." He goes back to the earliest
moment of his being, not to traduce his mother, but to acknowledge the deep tap roots of his sin. It is a wicked wresting of Scripture to deny that original sin and natural depravity are here taught. Surely men who cavil at this doctrine have need to be taught of the Holy Spirit what be the first principles of the faith. David's mother was the Lord's handmaid, he was born in chaste wedlock, of a good father, and he was himself, "the man after God's own heart;" and yet his nature was as fallen as that of any other son of Adam, and there only needed the occasion for the manifesting of that sad fact. In our shaping we were put out of shape, and when we were conceived our nature conceived sin. Alas, for poor humanity! Those who will may cry it up, but he is most blessed who in his own soul has learned to lament his lost estate. (C. H. Spurgeon)

And if this verse is not enough, there is another which is even more emphatic:

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--As soon as infants are born, they are born speaking lies. Those are not my words, but the words of the Holy Spirit. Why argue with them?
Shall we see what Spurgeon says about this verse?

"They go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Every observer may see how very soon infants act lies. Before they can speak they practise little deceptive arts. This is especially the case in those who grow up to be adept in slander, they begin their evil trade early, and there is no marvel that they become adept in it. He who starts early in the morning will go far before night. To be untruthful is one of the surest proofs of a fallen state, and since falsehood is universal, so also is human depravity.

There is much Scripture on the depravity of man (which includes infants). The question remains: Will you accept it?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff, let me start over. DHK, and others by the way, presents sinful man as sinful from birth with a nature that can ONLY choose sin necessitating his every move as sinful. I have heard others say sinful man is born and acts like a log floating downstream that cannot do anything other than to go with the current. If such beliefs are true, God must first grant to man the ability to have saving faith and enable him to act upon that faith by granting man the ability to respond to him. It of necessity must be an irresistible calling if it is effective, for again man is powerless apart from God to do anything good, including responding to Gods grace or anything else good for that matter. Are we on the same page so far?

Yep. So far So good.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, that is certainly not the only thing Spurgeon had wrong.