Babies are righteous?

[Brother Bob]

I don't wish to argue with you Brother Bob, so it will help if you will tell me why you posted me. I addressed reformedbeliever as to righteousness, and that is the question to be answered. I was answering the question "Babies are righteous?". Now you tell me that I must delve into "innocence" because that is what you are struggling with. I see others are trying to help you in this matter.

I beg to differ with you, it is not I that is struggling but the others. I never came into this discussion until they started preaching the gospel and reading to infants and I ask them the question of if a soul is born dead, then how can it die if it sins. Maybe you can answer that, for they couldn't.
I am not arguing with you, if you consider it arguing then I suggest we drop it, for I don't care to argue with you.

Eze 18:20The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Perhaps you can tell me how the soul that sinneth, it shall die, if it was born already dead. Please don't tell me that others are trying to help me, when they are trying to shove Calvinism down my throat, and get me to see it the way a Calvinist sees scripture, they could care less about helping me!!

I answered all, but you never extended the courtesy of letting us know if you are of "works", mistyped, misspoke. We all do things unintentionally on occasion.

I didn't know you needed an answer to whether the righteous did righteous acts. I thought all Christians believe in doing righteous acts.

BTW, don't you believe the righteous has good works? I never mistyped, misspoke or did anything I didn't want to do, thank you.

To me, preaching the gospel to infants is beyond the pail, maybe you do it though, you haven't said. I wonder how many converts you have and all said their children were the elect, so why are they reading to the crib. That must be a sight to see.

 

[Andy T.]

Brother Bob, the Ezekial 18:20 verse is in the context of the Lord telling his people that if they repent of their sin then they shall live. So verse 20 doesn't tell us anything about when a person sins - it says that the person who continues in their sin and does not repent will surely die.

 

[Brother Bob]

Brother Bob, the Ezekial 18:20 verse is in the context of the Lord telling his people that if they repent of their sin then they shall live. So verse 20 doesn't tell us anything about when a person sins - it says that the person who continues in their sin and does not repent will surely die.

Eze 18:20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. 4: Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
5: But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,

14: Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like,
15: That hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbour's wife,
16: Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment,
17: That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.



I beg to differ, it say it shall die, not that it is already sinned and dead. The soul that sinneth, It shall die. (future tense).

 

[Andy T.]

BB, I still don't see how that verse tells us when a person sins or is guilty of sin. It only tells us the consequences of sin, which is death. And death can be current (as in spiritual death ala Eph. 2:1) or future (as in physical death).

 

[Brother Bob]

It is saying and gives a long list of sins, that those who had did those things had died, (their soul) and if any should do those things in the future, their soul too shall die, but if they have not did those sins then they are alive and shall remain alive. They all are going to die the (physical death,) regardless of what they do. Don't you agree they all are going to die physically?

 

[Andy T.]

Well, I agree that those who continue in their sin, especially the sin of unbelief, will continue in their spiritual death, which is current (as it is before anyone is saved - Eph. 2) and future (the second death as found in Revelation 20-21 for those who are never saved).

 

[Brother Bob]

Rom 7:9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Andy T., do you believe Apostle Paul soul died in sin when the commandments came?


Also, if they do the following it will not let them escape the physical death, don't you agree?

hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.


Zep 3:13The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make [them] afraid.


Ezekiel, chapter 3
21: Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

Apparently there were some among them that had not sinned.

I think Eph 2 was talking to the Gentile nation.

13: In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

 

[Andy T.]

Rom 7:9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Andy T., do you believe Apostle Paul soul died in sin when the commandments came?

No, I do not think that passage teaches what you think it does. He is not talking about being spiritually alive and then spiritually dead. Notice that he admits that he sinned before his awareness of the law. His awareness of the law just increased his guilt and he died all the more. And note that he is specifically talking about the Mosaic Law here. So if we take your reasoning that one does not spiritually die until he knowingly violates the Mosaic Law, then anyone who never knows about the Mosaic Law is ipso facto innocent and spiritually alive. I don't think you want to go there - it would contradict too many other passages; Romans 2:12 and 3:23 for starters.

Also, if they do the following it will not let them escape the physical death, don't you agree?

hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.

I agree, and I clarified above that spiritual death is both current and future (in the second death - punishment in hell). But yes, I agree that everyone suffers the pang of physical death.

 

[Andy T.]

Zep 3:13The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make [them] afraid.

Ezekiel, chapter 3
21: Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

Apparently there were some among them that had not sinned.

Well, either you need to change your interpretation of these verses, or else you need to throw out Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

 

[Brother Bob]

I just quoted the scriptures, I guess we all will have to get the right meaning to them.

Oh, I don't think they have an excuse for not hearing the word.

Titus, chapter 2
11: For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12: Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
13: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;


Jhn 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

Romans 10:
17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18: But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Where do you get that Paul "died" a little more? He said he was alive without the Law. How can you be alive and dead at the same time?

What do you think Paul meant when he said he was alive and died. Was it his soul that was alive and died when the commandments came or what.

Also, I do believe in the Commandments, but believe they are in our hearts and mind.

 

[webdog]

No, I do not think that passage teaches what you think it does. He is not talking about being spiritually alive and then spiritually dead. Notice that he admits that he sinned before his awareness of the law. His awareness of the law just increased his guilt and he died all the more.

That's not what the text says..."he died all the more". It states emphatically "I died". While he did sin prior to knowing what sin is, he was not held accountable until the "commandment came to life", and THEN he died. Same is true with infants. They know that not listening to mom and dad is WRONG, but they think it's only wrong against mom and dad, not God. They don't have the mental capability to understand spiritual death. God's grace is sufficient for them

Andy Stanley once gave a great personal story. One day his daughter who was a toddler scratched her name into his new car. When he asked her if she did it, she said "yes daddy". She didn't know it was wrong. When Stanley told her it was wrong and not to do it again, she said "yes daddy". While then knowing it was wrong, she couldn't grasp the seriousness of it, that the car would have to be taken to a body shop for days, a rental car purchased for that time, and the huge cost in general. Was he supposed to make her pay for the damage? Even if he explained everything needed to fix the car, she would have no idea how much thousands of dollars were, and all of the things needed to fix the car. It would be pointless to even tell her. The only thing a loving father could do was pay the price necessary (Christ) and love her the same. That's grace.

Now if this were to happen when his dauther was 16 years old, she would have known the magnitude and seriousness of what she had done, and would have been held accountable.

 

[Andy T.]

Webdog, if you want to claim that Paul is talking about spiritual death in 7:9, then you have to claim that anyone who is not aware of the Mosaic Law is spiritually alive. Do you really want to make that claim against the mountain of Biblical evidence to the contrary?

Paul is distinguishing between sin prior to knowledge of the Mosaic Law and after such knowledge. But sin is still sin regardless of one's knowledge of such. More knowledge means greater condemnation, but the wages of all sin is death, whether done knowingly (against the Mosaic Law) or not. That is why the Israelites had to sacrifice for ignorant sins, too.

 

[Brother Bob]

Andy T.

1Jo 3:4¶Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Are you saying that adultery, worshipping idol Gods, killing, stealing, etc is not sin?

 

[Andy T.]

Andy T.

1Jo 3:4¶Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Are you saying that adultery, worshipping idol Gods, killing, stealing, etc is not sin?

Huh? I have said exactly that those things are sin. Sin is sin regardless if one knows the Mosaic Law or not. Where did you get the idea that I think the above are not sins?

 

[Brother Bob]

It seemed that you were saying the Commandments that Paul received were not to us. Sorry, my mistake.

 

[webdog]

Webdog, if you want to claim that Paul is talking about spiritual death in 7:9, then you have to claim that anyone who is not aware of the Mosaic Law is spiritually alive.

Like infants, MRDD? Yes. It's "Law", btw...not "mosaic law" in the original text. If Paul is not speaking of spiritual death, what was he speaking of? Can't be physical death.

Do you really want to make that claim against the mountain of Biblical evidence to the contrary?

If there were mountains of evidence supporting the Augustinian view of original sin, there would be no contradicting views. Romans 5:13, for one, makes that very claim against the augustinian view.
We would also need to baptize infants, remember, or all infants would perish.

Paul is distinguishing between sin prior to knowledge of the Mosaic Law and after such knowledge.

You and others who interpret that passage, are distinguishing pre and post mosaic law. The text states strictly "law"...God's law of righteousness, not "the law", as in mosaic law. There is no "the" in the original texts.

 

[skypair]

Well, I can't necessarily argue with you on this, because I can see where one could make that charge. There is no clear Scriptural support on all sides (there are more than two sides) of this issue, so any doctrine we come up with will have some sense of "mystery" attached to it. And [some] mysticism isn't necessarily antithetical to Christianity, only when it is taken to the extreme where the mystic says that God is essentially unknowable through the propositional revelation of Scripture. But if I have to choose between having some mystical thinking in my doctrine vs. having materialistic thinking in my doctrine, I will take the former every time.

Well, it is rather dismissive to say that all other propositions are "materialistic" and thus invalid, don't you think?? What is "materialistic" about infants being spiritually innocent -- besides that it doesn't conform to your paradign?? Did God find fault with Adam before Adam ate the fruit?? Why would He find fault with a baby then KNOWING that the infants are NOT guilty of the sins of their parents (Ezek 18:20)??

skypair

 

[reformedbeliever]

Well, it is rather dismissive to say that all other propositions are "materialistic" and thus invalid, don't you think?? What is "materialistic" about infants being spiritually innocent -- besides that it doesn't conform to your paradign?? Did God find fault with Adam before Adam ate the fruit?? Why would He find fault with a baby then KNOWING that the infants are NOT guilty of the sins of their parents (Ezek 18:20)??

skypair

Did Christ stand as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world? In God's perfect knowledge, yes He found fault with Adam.

 

[Andy T.]

Like infants, MRDD? Yes. It's "Law", btw...not "mosaic law" in the original text. If Paul is not speaking of spiritual death, what was he speaking of? Can't be physical death.

He is most certainly referring to the Mosaic Law in this context. Look at verse 7 - he quotes from the Decalogue.

What kind of death? It was an awakening to him to how serious his sin was. Verse 8 says apart from the law sin was dead - i.e., he was unaware of its effect and insidiousness. Verse 9 - he was "alive" not spiritually but in his own mind, which is supported by verse 10 when he says, "I found to bring death." In other words, his conscience was awakened through knowing the Law. This is further reinforced in verse 13 - "but sin, that it might appear sin" - so that his sin would become apparent to him. And he ends the verse with "so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful." His awareness of the Law did not make a non-sin into sin, it made it exceedingly sinful to his conscience.

So when I look at these verses and interpret them in light of other verses like 6:23 - that the wages of sin is death, and 2:12 - that those without the law will perish without the law, then I have to interpret that he is not talking about spiritual death or separation from God in 7:9. Rather, he is talking about a death in his conscience - an awakening to the seriousness of sin.

If there were mountains of evidence supporting the Augustinian view of original sin, there would be no contradicting views. Romans 5:13, for one, makes that very claim against the augustinian view.
We would also need to baptize infants, remember, or all infants would perish.

No, I've already shown that holding to Original Sin does not require a belief in Infant Baptism. 5:13 says that sin was in the world before there was an actual written code to reckon it as sin. Otherwise, you must be claiming that every man before the Mosaic Law was spiritually alive. Is that what you are saying? (And he is clearly talking about the Mosaic Law in v. 13 as shown by his reference "from Adam to Moses" in v. 14.)

 

[Andy T.]

Well, it is rather dismissive to say that all other propositions are "materialistic" and thus invalid, don't you think?? What is "materialistic" about infants being spiritually innocent -- besides that it doesn't conform to your paradign?? Did God find fault with Adam before Adam ate the fruit?? Why would He find fault with a baby then KNOWING that the infants are NOT guilty of the sins of their parents (Ezek 18:20)??

Skypair, you need to follow the thread better. I had a specific statement in mind as being materialistic - look at my clarification in post #246. Maybe "naturalistic" is a better term to use, because it denies the fact that God can supernaturally give faith and understanding to an infant.

On another note, I am much farther apart from you than I am from Webdog on this issue. Webdog at least affirms that everyone has a sin nature. He also affirms that no one is "innocent" - he uses the term "not guilty" and distinguishes the two. He also affirms that babies are saved by grace and need to be covered by the blood of Christ. From your participation in this thread, all I see from you is Pelagian type thinking. That quote from Mr. Showers is Pelagian. Your immediate post above exudes Pelagian thought, too - implying that we are all in the same state that Adam was. No, we are not in the same state that Adam was. If you cannot see that, then I am more worried about your theology than ever before.