Are there even biblical arminians posting On The baptist Board?

[convicted1]

That may be true...I honestly don't know for sure. So, maybe I should be careful about how I express the notion that there are NO dead infants who are in Hell...possibly, they are somehow "saved" (but that assumes "Original Guilt") and frankly...I do not presently accept or assume that...It could be true I guess. But, we now then have a quandry don't we???? If all who die in infancy are somehow "covered" or "forgiven" or are party to "grace" or (pick your verbiage) then it now behooves us, as Christians, to attempt to ensure that as many people die in infancy as concievably possible...Abortion, then, is God's greatest harvest of souls.... We cannot argue from some ignorance that "maybe they will all be saved"...because we absolutely know better. We are then left with a Calvinist assumption that only "elect" infants are saved...or we must think otherwise....I think "Original Guilt" might be the assumption we are making, which is giving you some pause. I don't blame you, it has dominated much of my thinking for most of my life...But we either are somehow forced to believe these possibilities:

1.) They are all born "guilty" and "condemned" but God saves them without respect to whether they ever do or do not, acknowledge him.
2.) There are some who are "elect" and will therefore be saved, and some who won't...and...sux to be the infant who wasn't "elect".
3.) None of them are, as of yet, actually guilty, and if they are "saved" than it is legally un-questionable as they are yet guilty of nothing, and they are therefore not discriminated against...(because they are too young to accept)...but neither are they given a "special" form of grace unavailable to all of us who had the mis-fortune to grow-up, because they are simply not legally guilty of any wrong-doing as we on this board obviously are...

An assumption of "Original Guilt" is critical here....and I am not sure, brother, whether that is supported Scripturally. It may be. But I am questioning whether the Bible itself, and not merely my own Baptist tradition...which stems from much Calvinist assumption... teaches this notion or not. Does it?

Well, the bible does state than "to know to doeth good, and doeth it not, to him, is sin". Does an infant/child really know what is "good" and/or "bad in God's sight?


A few years ago, a child accidently shot, and killed one of their siblings, when they found a loaded gun in their parent's car. They had just finished eating at a restaurant, and the mother was strapping their kids in when this happened. My dad's cardiologist was in the restaurant, and he went out and administered CPR until the ambulance came. That being said, the child died.

Now, let's assume that the police turns over the evidence to the DA. The DA examines the evidence and decides to not prosecute the child(the parents? now that's another kettle of fish, altogether). Why would the DA decide against prosecuting this child, eventhough, the evidence shows beyond a shadow of doubt(that's all any DA needs to "hang" the defendant, btw) that that child found the gun, squeezed the trigger, and indeed, fired the fatal shot? It has to do with intent. Sin isn't the lacking of something, as some on here purport, but is something. It is a knowing and willing rebellion against God and His Command(s).


The child that gets caught and lies, did so, not knowing that they did so in the sight of God, but to keep their fanny outta the fire.

 

[psalms109:31]

How cursed man would be if we murdered our children to ensure their salvation and put our Lord God to a test nor shall we believe we worship a god named moloch. I believe infants are in rest until the time that Convicted already stated.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Well, the bible does state than "to know to doeth good, and doeth it not, to him, is sin". Does an infant/child really know what is "good" and/or "bad in God's sight?


A few years ago, a child accidently shot, and killed one of their siblings, when they found a loaded gun in their parent's car. They had just finished eating at a restaurant, and the mother was strapping their kids in when this happened. My dad's cardiologist was in the restaurant, and he went out and administered CPR until the ambulance came. That being said, the child died.

Now, let's assume that the police turns over the evidence to the DA. The DA examines the evidence and decides to not prosecute the child(the parents? now that's another kettle of fish, altogether). Why would the DA decide against prosecuting this child, eventhough, the evidence shows beyond a shadow of doubt(that's all any DA needs to "hang" the defendant, btw) that that child found the gun, squeezed the trigger, and indeed, fired the fatal shot? It has to do with intent. Sin isn't the lacking of something, as some on here purport, but is something. It is a knowing and willing rebellion against God and His Command(s).


The child that gets caught and lies, did so, not knowing that they did so in the sight of God, but to keep their fanny outta the fire.

I agree with the DA.... and the parents are indeed, as you say "another kettle of fish"...

Maybe...and I pose this without argument...the infant is indeed "guiltless"..Even though the infant in your scenario did indeed "kill" it's sibling...There was no intent. There was no "rebellion", nor was that child committing the "cosmic treason" that R.C. Sproul thinks he is so ingenious for positing....
I don't honestly know that there are any Scriptures which actually teach "Original GUILT"....Original Sin..... yes, at least, in the sense that, left to their own devices, and without exterior influence, EVERY child will EVENTUALLY grow into the sinner with "intent" as we all know to be the case. But, prior to the capacity to repent, to what extent is one even capable of infraction????
I think we are possibly equivocating between "Original Sin" and "Original Guilt"....I think NO one, who is truly a "sinner" can be saved without the "Saviour"...but, no infant has truly ever accepted a "Saviour"...Thus, to what extent does the Bible actually teach that they have "sinned". Either they get off "Scott-free", despite guilt, Or they possibly posses no guilt. Only the second option is "legally" a resonable position.....And your DA was absolutely correct with his/her refusal to prosecute an infant.....

Maybe our basic reaction to Scripture is correct:

"To him that Knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, it is sin...."
and
Rom 7:9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
and
Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Perhaps these Scriptures are telling us something???

 

[convicted1]

How cursed man would be if we murdered our children to ensure their salvation and put our Lord God to a test nor shall we believe we worship a god named moloch. I believe infants are in rest until the time that Convicted already stated.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:Can I get an amen??:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

I agree with the DA.... and the parents are indeed, as you say "another kettle of fish"...

Maybe...and I pose this without argument...the infant is indeed "guiltless"..Even though the infant in your scenario did indeed "kill" it's sibling...There was no intent. There was no "rebellion", nor was that child committing the "cosmic treason" that R.C. Sproul thinks he is so ingenious for positing....
I don't honestly know that there are any Scriptures which actually teach "Original GUILT"....Original Sin..... yes, at least, in the sense that, left to their own devices, and without exterior influence, EVERY child will EVENTUALLY grow into the sinner with "intent" as we all know to be the case. But, prior to the capacity to repent, to what extent is one even capable of infraction????
I think we are possibly equivocating between "Original Sin" and "Original Guilt"....I think NO one, who is truly a "sinner" can be saved without the "Saviour"...but, no infant has truly ever accepted a "Saviour"...Thus, to what extent does the Bible actually teach that they have "sinned". Either they get off "Scott-free", despite guilt, Or they possibly posses no guilt. Only the second option is "legally" a resonable position.....And your DA was absolutely correct with his/her refusal to prosecute an infant.....

Maybe out basic reaction to Scripture is correct:

"To him that Knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, it is sin...."
and
Rom 7:9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
and
Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Perhaps these Scriptures are telling us something???

I am sure you were aware that the "DA thingy" was an example only, and not factual.


God saw there was no malice/intent to do that shooting intentionally, and doesn't punish them for it. When I was a child, I stole a few things, but the only fear I had was that if mom and dad caught me, I'd be up the creek w/o a paddle......I knew it was wrong in my parent's sight, but not God's.

 

[12strings]

I don't believe in total depravity or the Augustinian view of original sin.

In fact, I don't agree with anything that came out of the Latin West.

Now, Now, I don't have my clever thinking cap on right now, but I bet if I did I could think of something...:BangHead:



...I've got it: The Anglican Church "Came out" of the Latin West!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Now, Now, I don't have my clever thinking cap on right now, but I bet if I did I could think of something...:BangHead:



...I've got it: The Anglican Church "Came out" of the Latin West!

I'm talking about theology, not a denomination. But since you brought that up, Anglicanism allows for and contains considerable Eastern theology.

Just curious, why did you mention the Anglican Church here?

 

[12strings]

I'm talking about theology, not a denomination. But since you brought that up, Anglicanism allows for and contains considerable Eastern theology.

Just curious, why did you mention the Anglican Church here?

Just racking my brain trying to think of something that came out of the "latin west" that you might agree with...and I knew you have some positive sentiments toward Anglicanism...I would guess there's more...the spinning wheel or mechanical clock, maybe...since you didn't specify Theology in your first post.:tonofbricks:

 

[Iconoclast]

No, they don't....as the Apostle Paul said:
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

There are several on the bb that repeat this error over and over.

This verse does not teach what you are saying. Paul was not spiritually alive without the Holy Spirit....then died when he was older and heard the law.

this is a foolish idea to post much less to consider as even remotely what Paul was speaking of.

Please refrain from posting this unbiblical idea.According to this false idea all men who never hear God's law....do not sin

This idea should not even be a thought in a believers mind.

 

[convicted1]

There are several on the bb that repeat this error over and over.

This verse does not teach what you are saying. Paul was not spiritually alive without the Holy Spirit....then died when he was older and heard the law.

this is a foolish idea to post much less to consider as even remotely what Paul was speaking of.

Please refrain from posting this unbiblical idea.According to this false idea all men who never hear God's law....do not sin

This idea should not even be a thought in a believers mind.

So lemme get this straight; God creates a soul already dead in sin? Wow!

 

[Winman]

There are several on the bb that repeat this error over and over.

This verse does not teach what you are saying. Paul was not spiritually alive without the Holy Spirit....then died when he was older and heard the law.

this is a foolish idea to post much less to consider as even remotely what Paul was speaking of.

Please refrain from posting this unbiblical idea.According to this false idea all men who never hear God's law....do not sin

This idea should not even be a thought in a believers mind.

Absolutely false, the scriptures teach that the law is written on the heart and that men who do not have the law shall perish without the law.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )


Paul explains here that the Gentiles who do not have the law shall perish (spiritual death) without the law because they have the law written on their hearts.

But in Romans 7 Paul speaks of being alive "WITHOUT" the law. When was Paul ever without the law? The law was written about 1500 years before Paul was born. The only practical and reasonalble explanation is that Paul is speaking of being a child and not knowing the law. As soon as he matured and understood the law he was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died.

That this is what Paul is saying is shown when he explains that he would not have KNOWN what sin is except for the law;

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Paul explains here that he would not have known what sin is without the law. So, the only time he was without law was when he was a young child and did not yet understand right from wrong. This is supported by other scripture;

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

This scripture shows that God recognizes that little children do not at first understand between good and evil. This verse refutes Total Inability and shows a person can refuse evil and choose good.

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

Again, scripture shows that God recognizes that little children do not know between good and evil and does not hold them accountable until they mature and come to this knowledge.

All of this scripture supports itself, and supports that Paul was spiritually alive until he matured and understood the law. When he understood the law he was convicted by it and spiritually died.

You have absolutely no scripture that says men are born dead in sin, NONE.

 

[mont974x4]

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.


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


Does all mean all?

 

[Winman]

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.


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


Does all mean all?

The Jews knew and studied this scripture for nearly 1500 years before Augustine and never interpreted it to teach Original Sin. To this day the Jews do not believe this or any other OT scripture teaches Original Sin.

If it did teach that sin is passed down by our parents, it would teach that sin is passed by the mother which would make Jesus a sinner. NO WAY.

Rom 3:23 says all men have sinned, that is, all men are sinners because all men have committed personal sin. As Albert Barnes the theologian asked, "Is there any other way a man CAN sin?"

The scriptures clearly teach that God does not impute the sin of the father to his son.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

God said the soul that sins shall die, that is, the person who commits their own personal sin. God is absolutely clear that the son shall not bear the sin or iniquity of his father or vice versa.

Everyone knows it would be unjust to punish a person for another person's sin. God is no exception, God does not impute the sin of the father to his children, every man dies for his own personal sin.

Psa 51:5 is a poorly chosen and misapplied proof text that does not say all men are born sinners. The Jews NEVER believed this verse taught Original Sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Jews knew and studied this scripture for nearly 1500 years before Augustine and never interpreted it to teach Original Sin. To this day the Jews do not believe this or any other OT scripture teaches Original Sin.

If it did teach that sin is passed down by our parents, it would teach that sin is passed by the mother which would make Jesus a sinner. NO WAY.

Rom 3:23 says all men have sinned, that is, all men are sinners because all men have committed personal sin. As Albert Barnes the theologian asked, "Is there any other way a man CAN sin?"

The scriptures clearly teach that God does not impute the sin of the father to his son.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

God said the soul that sins shall die, that is, the person who commits their own personal sin. God is absolutely clear that the son shall not bear the sin or iniquity of his father or vice versa.

Everyone knows it would be unjust to punish a person for another person's sin. God is no exception, God does not impute the sin of the father to his children, every man dies for his own personal sin.

Psa 51:5 is a poorly chosen and misapplied proof text that does not say all men are born sinners. The Jews NEVER believed this verse taught Original Sin.

jesus was born of the Virgin Birth, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God His father, he bypassed the sin curse, and was born God in human flesh, with dual natures of God and sinless Humanity!

He is NOT as you and I, but unique, one of a kind!

And those verses in OT refer to God not punishing people unless they commit same type of crimes as their family members, NOT a treatise on sin and the human condition before God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Agreed, This thread is merely an equivocation betwixt "Original Sin" the yet unmentioned "Original Guilt" (also assumed) and "Total Inability"...but your assessment is Biblically and obviously correct. In Adam, we all do die (physically) but Adam also begat Seth..."in his own image" and that was, indeed, as a sinner, as any Calvinist would teach....Calvinists, though, usually do not distinguish between this "Spiritual Death" and "Physical Death"... "Original Sin", is indeed true....but too many assumptions are usually smuggled in with that obvious Biblical Truth.....Yes, there is indeed a "Biblical" doctrine of "Original Sin", but it doesn't entail the "Total inability" or even the "Original Guilt" that Calvinist Theology usually equates with it..........They may BOTH actually be true!!!!!! But they shouldn't use the Biblical expression of "Original Sin" in order to "prove" it!!!....They are NOT synonymous. That is where the confusion usually lies. It is a lack of teaching people basic logic. And Americans are indeed rarely taught how to distinguish propositions like these, without confusing them...Most simply have not been taught or learned how to do so.

We are born with a nature bent to sin, and to go against God, as we are at war with him until saved by him!

if born untainted by sin, what causes us to actually choose to sin?

And jesus died to atone for SIN debt, that we owe to God by nature of being Human, flesh like Adam, corrupted from Adam as the fountainhead!

 

[Iconoclast]

So lemme get this straight; God creates a soul already dead in sin? Wow!

Men are conceived in sin Willis....because their parents are sinners.That is the scriptural teaching. Physically alive, spiritually dead.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman,

You once again mis-use every verse in your post.We will not come to agreement.
You also have posted this error before....but you relish this error so what can I say.
I will follow the teaching of those verses ....in context.

For example;
Rom 3:23 says all men have sinned, that is, all men are sinners because all men have committed personal sin. As Albert Barnes the theologian asked, "Is there any other way a man CAN sin?"

All sinned here ...at one point in time....it is a past completed action.....not as you falsely teach that we become sinners later in life.
All sinned at one point in time...IN ADAM.....you and a handful of others consistently ignore this truth and post and teach false ideas.

8 The use of the aor. in both Romans passages, in their given context, point to an event, i.e., mankind did not simply inherit a sinful nature or tendency from Adam—“all have sinned,” thus referring to personal experience and activity, but “all sinned” in an event, a point in time (Rom. 3:23, pa,ntej ga.r h[marton kai. u`sterou/ntai th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/. “For all sinned and are subsequently constantly coming short…” Rom. 5:12, …diV e`no.j avnqrw,pou h` a`marti,a eivj to.n ko,smon…evfV w-| pa,ntej h[marton. “by one man sin entered into the world…for all sinned.”). Every human being is a sinner by imputation, nature and personal activity.

 

[Winman]

jesus was born of the Virgin Birth, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God His father, he bypassed the sin curse, and was born God in human flesh, with dual natures of God and sinless Humanity!

That does not solve your problem, if Psa 51:5 teaches that a sin nature is inherited from our parents, then it teaches that it is inherited from our mother, not our father. This verse does not mention David's father, but his mother only.

He is NOT as you and I, but unique, one of a kind!

And you have been shown numerous times that Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam, that he was made like his brethren the Jews in all things, and was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

And those verses in OT refer to God not punishing people unless they commit same type of crimes as their family members, NOT a treatise on sin and the human condition before God!

Nonsense, they clearly say that the son shall not BEAR the sin or iniquity of his father, yet that is what you falsely teach. You teach the exact opposite of what scriptures say.

If we are born sinners because of Adam's sin, then all men indeed BEAR the iniquity of their fathers.

You ignore scripture that clearly refutes Original Sin and hold to the false Gnostic and Manichean beliefs of Augustine.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

You once again mis-use every verse in your post.We will not come to agreement.
You also have posted this error before....but you relish this error so what can I say.
I will follow the teaching of those verses ....in context.

It is not I that loves error, Eze 18:20 clearly teaches God does not impute the sin of the father to his children, but you cling to Augustine's error.

All sinned here ...at one point in time....it is a past completed action.....not as you falsely teach that we become sinners later in life.
All sinned at one point in time...IN ADAM.....you and a handful of others consistently ignore this truth and post and teach false ideas.


[/B][/B]

Total nonsense, no one can sin for you, just as no one can repent for you. If our parents' sin is imputed to us, why if our parents believe on Jesus is not his righteousness imputed to us for their sakes? Total inconsistency.

And why is only Adam's sin imputed to us? Why is not the sin of all our fathers imputed to us? How do you explain that? If our father died in unbelief, why is not his unbelief imputed to us? Shouldn't all men die and go to hell for their parents' unbelief?

Pure superstition without one word of support from scripture, in fact, scripture refutes this pagan belief.

But you just keep telling yourself you are right, we will see who is right at the last.

 

[Iconoclast]

It is not I that loves error, Eze 18:20 clearly teaches God does not impute the sin of the father to his children, but you cling to Augustine's error.




Total nonsense, no one can sin for you, just as no one can repent for you. If our parents' sin is imputed to us, why if our parents believe on Jesus is not his righteousness imputed to us for their sakes? Total inconsistency.

And why is only Adam's sin imputed to us? Why is not the sin of all our fathers imputed to us? How do you explain that? If our father died in unbelief, why is not his unbelief imputed to us? Shouldn't all men die and go to hell for their parents' unbelief?

Pure superstition without one word of support from scripture, in fact, scripture refutes this pagan belief.

But you just keep telling yourself you are right, we will see who is right at the last.

Winman,
This is what the text of scripture says...your vain thoughts will not change it. You deny the very words of scripture ...right here....because you have no answer, no response that can stand up to this clear truth.

8 The use of the aor. in both Romans passages, in their given context, point to an event, i.e., mankind did not simply inherit a sinful nature or tendency from Adam—“all have sinned,” thus referring to personal experience and activity,


but “all sinned” in an event, a point in time (Rom. 3:23, pa,ntej ga.r h[marton kai. u`sterou/ntai th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/. “For all sinned and are subsequently constantly coming short…”




Rom. 5:12, …diV e`no.j avnqrw,pou h` a`marti,a eivj to.n ko,smon…evfV w-| pa,ntej h[marton. “by one man sin entered into the world…for all sinned.”). Every human being is a sinner by imputation, nature and personal activity.

They sin and died in Adam. We do not have to wait to see the error. Just read what you say and read this text over again.

Augustine, or pagans did not write it....it was given by the Holy Spirit to Paul.