Did Adam reach age of responsibility before

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/l...alsin/Psalms_Fifty_One_Five-WilliamMurray.pdf

Here is a good explanation of what I would consider one of the most misused and abused texts in Scripture, Psalms 51:5

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So HP now that you have me understanding what you are saying whats your next step?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/793-does-psalm-58-teach-original-sin

Here is a short article on Psalms 53 that I believe explains it fairly well.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

1. Bible details you are ignoring are that Adam was created as an adult capable of marriage on day 1, capable of language on day 1, capable of being on his own - day 1 (see Genesis 2 details) and also "Good" as God called him. Thus he knew right from wrong - and knew to obey God.

Even Gen 3 shows that Eve knew right from wrong.

2. Nobody said anything about "thinking ill of someone" that is not vegan. I am just pointing out the fact that the plant-only setup for man and animals shows a peaceful sinless holy environment.

Adam was a not simply a ruthless brute fighting to survive. A animal-like hominid who could not tell the difference between right and wrong.

So that gets us to the question of whether Adam knew right from wrong when he chose to sin.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

To utilize Psalm 58 to establish a universal doctrine of original sin is to cavil at any semblance of sound interpretation via reasonable biblical rules of interpretation. One would have to completely overlook the clear and stated context of the passage to read support for original sin into that text.

The passage of Scripture found in Ps. 58 pits TWO groups of individuals one against the other, the wicked as opposed to the righteous. It does not by any stretch of the imagination speak of any universal principle of sin from birth as the supporters of original sin suggest.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

HP thats a lot of reading and my ADD kicks in. is there a summery?

 

[DHK]

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

Yeah, I know. He smoked cigars. :laugh:
Otherwise, you are going up against a formidable foe.

 

[billwald]

Nothing wrong with cigars.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Is there a verse somewhere about those who destroy the temple of the Holy Spirit? I wonder if that applies to cancer causing agents?

Who might be the first to say that the evils of tobacco were not known in Spurgeons day?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

A mere two pages or so of good reading does wonders for ADD.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thinkingstuff, would you say irresisitable grace and limited atonement are correct assumtions?

 

[DHK]

http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/l...alsin/Psalms_Fifty_One_Five-WilliamMurray.pdf

Here is a good explanation of what I would consider one of the most misused and abused texts in Scripture, Psalms 51:5

Your problem here is:
God chose David.
Samuel anointed David at the command of the Lord as King of Israel over his brothers.
God looked at the heart; whereas man looked at the outward appearance and chose Saul.
Jesse did say: "I have one more son. It was the son of Jesse, and he did have nothing to be ashamed of.
The Lord Himself never says anything negative against the birth of David.
In fact the the Lord exalts the birth of David above the birth of all of Jesse's children.

Read the context of Psalm 89. This verse speaks about David:
Psalms 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
--I will make David my firstborn. In other words he will become preeminent over the children born before him. The Lord never says anything negative about the birth of David.

Thus the opinions given from the site you reference are opinions only and of not much value. David refers to his own sinfulness and not anything to do with his mother.

 

[DHK]

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/793-does-psalm-58-teach-original-sin

Here is a short article on Psalms 53 that I believe explains it fairly well.

The problem with this article is objectivity. The author starts out with a biased opinion from the beginning.

“I’ve just discovered your web site and all the wonderful Christian articles there. I’m pleased with what I’ve read, and I appreciate the fact that you are willing to address and discuss some biblical issues that are difficult. I have read your article ”“Original Sin” and a Misapplied Passage". I used to think that God considered all babies innocent, and I had heard about ‘the age of accountability.’ But after learning more about the Bible, I have changed my conclusion on that. It definitely is a very hard thing to think about. Have you read Psalm 58:3ff? It seems to say that babies are seen by God as sinners. Can you explain this passage?"

We know he is going to explain away the passage before we even get to the answer asked of him. Why even read the article.
He then begins to make excuses for it: It is poetical, it is allegorical, etc. There is no end of rationalization and allegorization for what the Bible teaches.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, I felt he failed to bring out the truths I presented in post #185, but overall I agee with his summary.

 

[DHK]

DHK, I felt he failed to bring out the truths I presented in post #185, but overall I agee with his summary.

I will be truthful. I don't think you brought out any truths in post #185, and I don't agree with either of those summaries.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The Lord never says anything negative about the birth of David.

HP: Why should he? Do you think he was born a sinner or what?

 

[DHK]

HP: Why should he? Do you think he was born a sinner or what?

Because in a psalm of repentance he allowed David to pour out his heart to God in a very penitent way confessing himself to be a sinner from birth, wicked from the very core, so wicked as to commit this very evil deed. It was a psalm of repentance and there was nothing in it to be allegorized away. It was from the heart that he was speaking.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

It is an absolute impossibility to 'repent' or even have remorse for something unavoidable.

 

[DHK]

It is an absolute impossibility to 'repent' or even have remorse for something unavoidable.

You have defeated your own argument. David was confessing his sinfulness in a psalm of repentance. He was confessing that he was a wicked sinner.

Paul often did the same thing. Consider the statements:
I am the chief of all sinners.
O wretched man that I am; who shall deliver me from the body of this death!
It is not I but sin that dwelleth in me.

In the last statement Paul points right to his sin nature. The sin nature that dwells within him causes him to sin. Think about it. Does the act of sin dwell in a person. No. The nature to sin dwells in a person. The act of sin (murder or lying) is done because of the sin nature that is within the person. The act is done without, that is, outside of the body, not within the body. It is done because sin or the sin nature lies within the body. It dwells or has taken up residence there, and has been there since birth. That is what Paul has testified to.

That is what David confessed to.
If you have never confessed to the Lord that you are a sinner, isn't it time?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

It is an absolute impossibility to 'repent' or even have remorse for something unavoidable. Sin is not unavoidable nor is it an inherited trait from Adam or any other.