How does a baby sin?

klint,
With all due respect.........you write:
"What we inherited from Adam was the AWARENESS of sin."

Scott states:
You have reduced the extensive characteristics of the fall of man and it's viral imputation to "AWARENESS".
The scriptures disgree with this. In fact, this is an unorthodox diagnoses.

Eastons Bible Dictionary:

•FALL OF MAN an expression probably borrowed from the Apocryphal
Book of Wisdom, to express the fact of the revolt of our first parents from
God, and the consequent sin and misery in which they and all their
posterity were involved.
The history of the Fall is recorded in Genesis 2 and 3. That history is to be
literally interpreted. It records facts which underlie the whole system of
revealed truth. It is referred to by our Lord and his apostles not only as
being true, but as furnishing the ground of all God’s subsequent
dispensations and dealings with the children of men. The record of Adam’s
temptation and fall must be taken as a true historical account, if we are to
understand the Bible at all as a revelation of God’s purpose of mercy.
The effects of this first sin upon our first parents themselves were (1)
“shame, a sense of degradation and pollution; (2) dread of the displeasure
of God, or a sense of guilt, and the consequent desire to hide from his
presence. These effects were unavoidable. They prove the loss not only of innocence,
but of original righteousness, and, with it, of the favour and
fellowship of God. The state therefore to which Adam was reduced by his
disobedience, so far as his subjective condition is concerned, was
analogous to that of the fallen angels. He was entirely and absolutely
ruined” (Hodge’s Theology).
But the unbelief and disobedience of our first parents brought not only on
themselves this misery and ruin, it entailed also the same sad consequences
on all their descendants. (1.) The guilt, i.e., liability to punishment, of that
sin comes by imputation upon all men, because all were represented by
Adam in the covenant of works (q.v.). (See IMPUTATION.)
(2.) Hence, also, all his descendants inherit a corrupt nature. In all by
nature there is an inherent and prevailing tendency to sin. This universal
depravity is taught by universal experience. All men sin as soon as they are
capable of moral actions. The testimony of the Scriptures to the same
effect is most abundant (Romans 1; 2; 3:1-19, etc.).

The state therefore to which Adam was reduced by his
disobedience, so far as his subjective condition is concerned, was
analogous to that of the fallen angels. He was entirely and absolutely
ruined” (Hodge’s Theology).

[ October 20, 2002, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

The Fall represents the one sin possible at that time, eating of the Tree of Knowledge. The Fruit of that Tree made man aware. I have reduced nothing, I have only taken the Scripture as it is written:

Your presented text, however, supports my position with this statement:

Is an infant CAPABLE of moral actions?

[edited for spelling]

[ October 20, 2002, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Please cite these references with respect to the incognizance of God inherent in an infant.

Inherited SIN is not a Scriptural concept. Inherited AWARENESS is. Each individual is responsible for their own actions. Romans 14:12

 

Clint writes:
The Fall represents the one sin possible at that time, eating of the Tree of Knowledge. The Fruit of that Tree made man aware .

Scott expounds (The italics above are my emphasis-not Clint's):

Gen 2 implies something else occured.......DEATH!
In this death, man fell. That is why, the mistake is known as "The Fall" and not "The Awareness".

Many believe that since Gen 3:1-6, everything is an effect of this fall, with the exception of Gods devine grace.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Also, this initial sin ushered in something that was never instituted; judgement! God immediately judged the man, woman and serpent, and expelled them from the garden forever. The expulsion has denied men and woman the right and entrance to the tree of life since.

The extent of the event is much more than just awareness! Being aware of something does not necessarilly bring, shame, a sense of degradation and pollution, the dread of displeasure from God and guilt. The need to hide from the creators presence.

The losses were large. Much larger than just awareness. Innocence was lost. Original righteousness was lost. Fellowship with God was lost. The fall was analogous to the fall the angels suffered! Man was entirely & absolutely ruined. (With help from Charles Hodge)

Dr Robert Reymond says, The image of God, which was reflected in both Adam and Eve....was fractured. Murray calls it, "Revolution in the human family".

The environment became cursed. see Gen 3:18

Clint inquires:
Please cite these references with respect to the incognizance of God inherent in an infant.

Clint,
Scriptural silence in regards to the infant does not necessarily imply that *all* ideas having to do with the infant or infants are unscriptural. Example: Woman or children are not central (per se) in much of scripture. This silence does not necessarily exclude them from the ideas, based upon this (so called) silence.

Clint states:
Inherited SIN is not a Scriptural concept. Inherited AWARENESS is. Each individual is responsible for their own actions. Romans 14:12

Scott asks:
So, then since sin is not *inherited*, men are born SINLESS? Jesus was not the only sinless baby born? Babies, as per the above, do not need a savior, only after they have sinned do they require the propitiatory favor of Gods grace?

The book of Romans is Gods example of His *forensic imputation* of Adams first transgression to all those descending from him by ordinary generation. Based upon this, all mankind has lost fellowship with God. Now, men are in need of Gods grace. Prior to this viral plight, they had no need.

Psa 51:5 Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Klint,
Are the above references only referring to death and something physically "dirty?"

[ October 20, 2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

Which commandment (law) was broken.....

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart.......

I doubt if the infant is capable of doing this, and therefore, technically broke the first commandment...........

Come to think of it, I think we all fall short on this one

So much for Law and breaking a law being the condition of being a sinner

Cheers,

Jim

I another thread on infant conversion, you can read what I wrote......and I did bend in favour of the infant of believing parents....chapter and verse?....none

 

Helen,
Thanks for the correction of Clints name. I edited my post in that regards.

Helen writes:
Scott, you are confusing inherited sin nature with sin itself.

Scott writes:
I disagree Helen......
"Sin nature" equals "sin in the nature" equals natures that are sinful. How can you not equate the ideas.

Are you telling me that the scriptures I support my ideas with (previously posted to Clint)are referring to a nature that is only *capable* of sinning, not SIN-FILLED? Is not Adams sin "imputed?"

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Also........Jesus was not the only person born sinless then?

[ October 20, 2002, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

Scott, that was impressive...

 

Wow, step away from the board for a couple of days and you never know what you are going to miss. 8 pages already?!

So Helen, you are capable of keeping the law perfectly? It seems to me that is a requirement, yet it is one we cannot keep. Isn't that Jesus' point with the rich young ruler? If you want to know what you must do to be saved, keep the commandments perfectly. But, you can't do that. That is why I am here. I will keep the law for you, because you can't. It is our requirement, but we are unable to do it (Romans 8).

Of course we can be held accountable for that which we cannot do. That's the reason Christ came. We can't keep the law, so Christ had to come keep it for us, and die the perfect sacrifice.

Chris

[ October 20, 2002, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Music Man ]

 

Helen, if I may ask you a question to try to understand the bottom line.

It seems to me that at the root of the disagreement, and correct me if I am wrong, please. It seems the bottom line is that you have a child who is incapable of exercising any faith in Christ. And because of that, you cannot imagine the thought of that child being sent to Hell for a sin nature. So, it seems that you have come up with a way to make yourself feel better about you child's ultimate destiny. Granted, you have used some scriptures (even if misinterpreted, e.g. Rom 7) to try to back up your belief, but your interpretations simply do not fit with the rest of Scripture.

Whether you like it or not, we are condemned because of the one sin of Adam because we were there with him, as Paul points out quite clearly in Rom 5. And, knowledge of sin is not necessary for there to be actual guilt of sin. I was driving down the road a few years ago and there was no speed limit sign in sight. I did not know the speed limit, but I was pulled over for going over the speed limit. I talked to my brother who is a lawyer, and he said (at least in Georgia) that there is a law that says that if there is no speed limit sign posted, you must assume that the speed limit is 35 mph. #1- I did not know the speed limit, but that did not mean I had not broken the law. I was given a ticket. #2- I did not know about that law about the 35 mph thing. It didn't matter. That was the law, and I broke it whether I knew the law or not. Ignorance is NO excuse. Believe me, I tried

Respectfully,
Chris

 

In regards to my "confusing" sin nature w/ imputed sin........

Hodges writes (From Charles Hodge's "Systematic Theology"):

That the sin of Adam injured not himself only, but also all descending from him, by ordinary generation, is part of the faith of the whole Christian world.

In this view of the relation of mankind to Adam and of the consequences of his apostasy, the three leading subjects are the imputation of Adams first sin, the corruption of nature derived from him, and the innability of fallen man to any spiritual good.

Scott adds:
The first Adam imputed sin, which brings death,
The last Adam, Christ, imputes righteousness to His children.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners , so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

1 Cor 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1 Cor 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1 Cor 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1 Cor 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1 Cor 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

[ October 20, 2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

So Helen, you are capable of keeping the law perfectly? It seems to me that is a requirement, yet it is one we cannot keep. </font>[/QUOTE]But technically, we *can* avoid sinning, we just don't much of the time. My problem is that I have a sin nature (a bent toward sinning) *and* that I have willfully sinned against God. I am accountable to God for my sins, but not for the sins of Adam. From Adam I inherited a sin nature and a fallen world and culture -- thanks for that Adam

But I have also confirmed Adam's sin and my sin nature by sinning myself when I came to the age of knowing right from wrong. I've often explained that age as the time when you did something -- didn't get in trouble for it -- but knew it was wrong instinctively. If you've reached that point, you've become aware of your sin and are now accountable before God.

Actually the rich young ruler was self-deceived. He was (in his own eyes) blameless in his public morality, but Jesus poked a hole in that when He challenged the man to give up his money for the sake of obeying God.

The way I understand the New Testament, it in not so much about keeping the Law, but of being in right relationship with God. The Law is simply a schoolmaster, a measure, a diagnostic tool that reveals our fallenness to ourselves. Jesus puts us in right relation to God through demonstrating His love toward us on the cross and enabling the victory through His resurrection. Through Christ we are free from the Law and now live as children of the most high God. The Law is still good to use as a diagnostic tool, but it does not enable our faith and obedience.

In the context of Romans, I believe Paul is talking about overcoming our sin nature and the effects of our own sin through human effort -- it is impossible without Christ.

We can, but God does not hold us accountable for sins we do not commit.

[ October 20, 2002, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

One does not need to be aware of Christ to be saved. For the believer to be part of the Elect it requires faith, however, John 5:1-14 gives us the story of the Healing at the Pool in which an invalid(?) is healed by Christ without the man knowing who Christ is. It is not until the very end of the passage that Christ warns the man of desisting in his sin.

We do not set the rules on whom God will save. As John 5:21 (for the third time) states that Christ Himself will make that decision concerning each individual.

Once again, we have a JUST God. That, I'm certain, is why David said with confidence in 2Samuel 12:23 after the death of his newborn son:

Scott, I will address your response to me in a little while. I just logged on a moment ago.

 

You can? Before you became a Christian, you could avoid sinning?

That has been my point this whole time. He thought he was blameless, but he was not. He was still responsible for all of those sins he was committing when he thought he was blameless. Paul also called himself blameless before his conversion, in Philippians. But, he was still responsible for persecuting Christ. Ignorance is NO excuse!

Of course it was not only about keeping the law perfectly, but that was part of it. Christ led a sinless life so he could be the perfect sacrifice.

My point was that around verse 7 it says we are unable to keep the law.

He doesn't?

Numbers 14:16-- "'The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.' "

Exodus 20:5-- "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,"

Exodus 34:7-- "maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

Deuteronomy 5:9-- "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, "

Deuteronomy 23:2-- "No one born of a forbidden marriage Or [one of illegitimate birth] nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation."

Chris

 

Was that man justified at the time of the healing? His body was healed, but I don't think he was yet justified (I might be thinking of another healing).

Is this addressed to me? I don't disagree with you. I did not mean to imply in my previous post that I think her son is going to Hell. We have been having this discussion for a few threads now, and I have made it clear in previous threads that I believe that children and those mentality incapable of faith in Christ will be regenerated. But, that is not based on any one verse though, I just base that on my understanding of the character of God. He is just, but he is also merciful.

Also, about David, I don't have a problem with what he said. He could have believed the same way I do, that God saves all children out of grace and mercy. But, the salvation is not because they are w/o sin or have not sinned knowingly, but ONLY out of grace and mercy. All of God, nothing within them.

Chris

 

Helen writes:
Continuing down the posts, yes, Scott, we were injured by Adam -- but did you notice that he was not the first to sin? Eve was. But Eve was deceived and therefore although she did damage, we don't read that sin entered the world because of her! It entered because of Adam, the one who had been given the law and who knew it.

Scott writes:
Helen, this idea is illogical and certainly not orthodox. Since scripture does not literally state that Eve was given the law, as did father Adam, she is not concious of the law, so based upon this premise, she is not held by that law. She was well aware of the command of God to not partake from the tree.

The reason that God deals with Adam is based upon "natural headship". The reason all mankind is condemned due to Adams sin is the same reason why all generations following Adam will "work the ground". This is called "Federal Headship".

[ October 20, 2002, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

I will not conjecture further than the Bible speaks on the subject. If this verse means that babies speak lies, then it does not matter whether you or I can name which lie they speak. If it does not mean that babies speak lies, then it does not matter that way either.

I will be glad to consider any idiomatic usage that you point out in the verse. Just saying that it is idiomatic does not convince me. If I understand idiomatic usage, it is usually a peculiar grammatical structure or a phrase peculiar to a language whose meaning cannot be derived from the actual meaning of the words put together to make the phrase (like, "let the cat out of the bag," which is not really about cats or bags, but about telling a secret or something unexpectedly). Where is the idiom in Psalm 58:3? I do note that verse 3 is followed by figurative language in verse 4-6, but I have failed to see the idiom. Even idiomatic and figurative language in the Bible teachs truth. Since discussion of this verse seems to get lost in the multiplicity of posts in this thread, I will start a topic on Psalm 58:3 in the Theology forum. I will post a link here AS SOON AS I start it.

What??

I feel that there are enough scripture references for us to have hope that babes who die are in the presence of God. But there are too many things you assume about that passage in order to make it prove what you want to prove - that babies do not sin. Am I correct in understanding that you are using the fact that a baby would die and go to heaven as proof that a baby cannot sin?