By One Man's Disobedience Many Were Made Sinners

[Winman]

For the life of me why do you take Scripture out of context which not even the typical Calvinist uses to prove the opposite. You don't make sense.

I make perfect sense and you know it.

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. Stop. Period.
There is absolutely nothing there about original sin. Read the context. Why are you reading into this passage something that is not there. It is speaking of murder and cruelty.

What pray tell is Original Sin then? How can you be born spiritually dead if you are not born guilty of Adam's sin? Death is a judgment, it is condemnation. We are not talking about physical life here, we are talking about spiritual life. The soul does not die like the body does, the soul is forever alive. But to be spiritually dead is to be CONDEMNED by God.

How can you be condemned unless you have committed some crime and have been convicted of it by a court? But you believe we are born in this condemned state, separated from God, not for anything we have done, but because of Adam's sin. But Eze 18:20 says the son shall not bear THE INIQUITY of his father.

You can play dumb if you like, you know exactly what I am saying, and you know I am correct.

You quote from the favorite book the cults like to use. Why is that? You ignore context. "They have sought out many inventions." Doesn't that give you a clue? Solomon, through his wisdom, is seeking out various avenues of life where to find happiness. The theme is "vanity of vanities; all is vanity." He is looking at life from an unsaved point of view. The conclusion is not given until the last chapter. This is an unsaved man's point of view; for we know God did not make man upright except it be for Adam. "There is none good, no not one." God doesn't contradict himself.

The verse clearly says God has made man upright. Look up the definition of "upright", it means righteous. Then it says "but they (all men) have sought out many inventions" showing man willingly and knowingly sinned. To seek out anything is an act of the will, it is a desiring for something, or to do something. A newborn baby has no concept of what sin is, and a newborn child cannot devise or seek out sin.

To say such is to ignore much scripture especially that which is taught in Romans 5:12-19.

Romans 5:12 says death has passed on all men, it does not say sin has passed on all men as you falsely believe.

Wrong again. The little ones here are those that are 20 and younger, well able to make decisions on their own. The older generation would not inherit the land because of their obstinacy to the testimony of Joshua and Caleb. You are ignoring context.

Take it up with God, I didn't write the scriptures. Your argument is with the word of God, not me.

When you ignore context you can make the Bible say anything you want it to:
"There is no God" Psalm 14:1

What a misrepresentation. I included the whole verse and it is easy to read. God said the little ones in that day that had no knowledge between good and evil. Again, your argument is with the word of God, not me.

 

[DHK]

I make perfect sense and you know it.

No, Scripture taken out of context never makes sense.

What pray tell is Original Sin then? How can you be born spiritually dead if you are not born guilty of Adam's sin? Death is a judgment, it is condemnation. We are not talking about physical life here, we are talking about spiritual life. The soul does not die like the body does, the soul is forever alive. But to be spiritually dead is to be CONDEMNED by God.

Right definitions require proper Scriptural defense. Don't try to pin that down on Scripture taken out of context or refute it on Scripture taken out of context. That is what you are doing. I object to the butchering of God's Word.

How can you be condemned unless you have committed some crime and have been convicted of it by a court? But you believe we are born in this condemned state, separated from God, not for anything we have done, but because of Adam's sin. But Eze 18:20 says the son shall not bear THE INIQUITY of his father.

Look, you can take whatever position you want. That is not my objection here. Ez.18:20 has nothing to do with your stand. It speaks nothing of OS or anything related to it. It has to do with Capital Punishment, or the punishment of sins related to it. Can you prove that it is speaking of the depravity of mankind, OS, or anything related to those doctrines? Does it mention Adam, the inheritance of sin. No. You are simply taking Scripture out of context, and that is what I object to. I am not even arguing your belief at this point. I am arguing your terrible butchering of Scripture. Don't make Scripture mean something it doesn't say. You are putting yourself on the same level of the cults. You are destroying the meaning of the Bible. Study what it says.

You can play dumb if you like, you know exactly what I am saying, and you know I am correct.

Who is dumb? I don't like to use that word, but you just used it. Where in Ezekiel does the entire passage refer to Adam, as you claim? This is a false claim? Your misuse of Scripture is terrible. I don't care about your beliefs at this point. I am concerned about your use of Scripture.

The verse clearly says God has made man upright.

Sure it says man is upright. But who is saying it and in what context? Again a direct misuse of Scripture ignoring the context. Why do you go to any extent to defend your position. I am not concerned about your belief but your continued misuse of Scripture. Have you ever took the time to study the Book of Ecclesiastes? Do you know what the theme of the book is? Thus, do you know what context that verse is written in? It appears not. You take Scripture out of context at random, all to defend your position. I am not concerned about your position at this point. I am concerned about your unethical treatment of Scripture.

Look up the definition of "upright", it means righteous. Then it says "but they (all men) have sought out many inventions" showing man willingly and knowing sinned. To seek out anything is an act of the will, it is a desiring for something, or to do something.

Quite right.

A newborn baby has no concept of what sin is, and a newborn child cannot devise or seek out sin.

The verse is not speaking about:
1. All men being righteous.
2. newborns being righteous.
3. If you don't know the context don't post about the verse.

Romans 5:12 says death has passed on all men, it does not say sin has passed on all men as you falsely believe.

Death is a result of sin. It is only the consequence. Death has passed upon all men because all men have sin and sinned.

Take it up with God, I didn't write the scriptures. Your argument is with the word of God, not me.

What do I need to take up with God. The "children" were those 20 years and under. This again shows your ignorance of Scripture. They were the generation that was allowed to enter the Promised Land; the older generation was not. The "little ones" does not refer to infants as you imply. This again is a butchering of Scripture. You had better take this up with God. Take it up with God, why do you continually ignore context and take Scripture willy-nilly out of its context.

What a misrepresentation. I included the whole verse and it is easy to read. God said the little ones in that day that had no knowledge between good and evil. Again, your argument is with the word of God, not me.

You did not give the context, as I just did. The whole context is needed. What was the occasion? Why was that verse even mentioned. The context was the entering of the Promised Land. You never mentioned that.

"There is no God." Would you mention the context there too?
It doesn't seem like it. Sometimes the context is more than one verse.

 

[Winman]

Lots of words, but little substance. Here is the only statement you made I want you to explain to me;

Death is a result of sin. It is only the consequence. Death has passed upon all men because all men have sin and sinned.

What exactly do you mean by "all men have sin"? Where did we get this sin?

Explain that, and I'll explain how Eze 18:20 refutes it.

 

[glfredrick]

First, I noticed that you FAILED to answer a direct question to you from a post above. Why? Answer not in keeping with your doctrine?

Second, I noticed that you FAILED to answer the rather lenghty post I made conderning Romans 5:12 that YOU ASKED FOR. Why? Refute your doctrine?

Third, I will get on with the stuff below, which is so far afield that it is barely worth a response, but for the other readers, there should be a reasoned answer...

I have no idea what you are talking about. Eze 18:20 refutes Original Sin that says we are born in sin. Eze 18:20 clearly and simply says God does not impute the sins of the father to the son or vice versa.

You have already been shown why this is in error. Even if Eze 18:20 did speak about "original sin" (it does not) it in no way REFUTES original sin. It is more localized than that, speaking to the issue of the immediate sins of the father, not the separation sin we are all born with, requiring, by the way, a "born again" experience, c.f., John 3, where Jesus explains this same issue to Nicodemus.

The scriptures say God has made man upright, not a sinner, but they have sought out (an act of the will) many inventions.

After redemption, not before, and even then man can and still does sin, both by ommission and comission, by choice and by accident.

To seek out something is an act of the will. A newborn baby cannot even comprehend what sin is, much less seek or devise sin. The word of God itself shows little children do not understand the difference between good and evil.

And yet the child DID sin... Whether or not he or she could "comprehend" their sin is of no consequence. THAT they sin is. Why they sin is more, and they sin because they are born in sin.

You can tell a newborn baby all day long it is a sin to lie, and that baby will not understand a word you are saying. Deut 1:39 shows that little children do not know the difference between good and evil. A child must mature, probably at least 2 years old before they can grasp what a lie is.

Understanding is not prerequisite to sinning... Beling a human being is.

So obviously, Ecc 7:29 is speaking of persons who have matured enough to understand between good and evil, and have willingly sought to do wrong. But that is not how men come into the world, the scriptures say God has made man upright. And the word "they" shows this verse is speaking of all men, and not Adam only.

Men who have matured enough to know the difference between good and evil have even less an excuse than those who do not yet know their sin, but what you are in effect saying is that one has to know and choose sin in order to be a sinner. That goes FAR astray from the Bible and is in FACT a Pelagian stance.

 

[Winman]

Actually, I spent a good 20 minutes about an hour ago answering every one of your comments, but when I tried to post it, it failed to post. When I pressed the back arrow to go back to the reply box, everything I had written was gone. I will go back and answer it now, it was not difficult to refute whatsoever.

 

[Winman]

So, you admit that the concept of original sin was one present in the very early church, and that the doctrine was under some development well before Augustine.

That is the main point I have been trying to make.

I am NOT arguing in this thread about other points of doctrine from the Anti-Nicene Church Fathers and have readily admitted that they made errors in their doctrine.

My point was HISTORICAL only.

Thanks for your help.

Yes, I agree with you here. Although it was Augustine who tried to establish the doctrine using scripture.

All well and good. I disagree with what you said about Augustine's misunderstanding of the text, but we can discuss that later. If he misunderstood it, so did virtually everyone else, except of course, Origien and Pelagius, and you have earlier disavowed yourself of Pelagius' thought on this matter, so I'm not sure where you stand (or with whom) after that. There must be some mystical Baptist in the history of the church that argues from silence in order to arrive at some other conclusion.

The Eastern church that used only Greek texts disagreed with Augustine and do to this day. Their history is even longer than the Western or Roman church.

Again, thanks... That WAS my point.

It was scripture that made me realize OS is false doctrine, further study simply confirmed it.

And, you have not exegeted this Scripture IN CONTEXT as was suggested by DHK above.

Sure I did, and Matthew Henry’s interpretation agreed almost perfectly with mine.

WE KNOW and readily admit that the son does not pay the penalty for a father who was a murder.

But that is not what Eze 18:20 says, it says the son shall not bear THE INIQUITY of his father. It says nothing about punishment except “the soul that sinneth, it shall die”. How can you die if you were born dead? Nonsensical.

What that passage DOES NOT SAY is that the son was not born in a state of separation from God because of his inherited sin nature. That SO MANY Anti-Nicene Church Fathers found original sin IN THE TEXT speaks loudly to the fact that you are misinterpreting this particular passage because of an a priori presupposition on your part that there is no original sin that a person is born carrying.

No, they were using a flawed Latin text that said “in whom all have sinned” for Rom 5:12. The faulty translation led to the error.

So, next you are faced with a larger problem... How to decide just when sin enters into the life/soul/spirit (whatever) of the youngster. At what point does the Cross become NECESSARY for them? The very earliest church decided from birth. The church ever since the writing of Scripture has said the same, EXCEPT persons declared heretical in their thought on this issue.

God determines when a child knows between good and evil (Deut 1:39). This is not a problem for me in the least.

So (again) you are faced with the problem, do you side with those declared heretical or do you see original sin in the Text. There is no alternative choice, for that die has been cast. You either admit to Pelagianism or you do not, but if not, then original sin exists.

I could care less who the RCC declares heretical. The RCC declared tens, if not hundreds of thousands of true Christians heretics and murdered many of them.

For the life of me, I cannot understand what is so difficult about Romans 5:12. Since it was written it has always been understood to read that because of Adam sin entered into all men.

By whom? The RCC? Disagree with them and you were a dead man. Pretty easy to maintain false doctrine when you kill anybody who disagrees.

 

[Winman]

Let's break it down in English:

-- Wherefore -- Because of the argument presented to this point by PaulAAAs
-- As by -- because of -- a comparison to
-- One -- singular
-- Man -- a human being (modified by the singluar above)
-- Sin -- an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God
-- Entered -- came into (existence or being)
-- The world -- "Kosmos" -- the universe inhabited by human beings, in context, people

Stopping so far to see what has been written:

Because of the argument presented so far, i.e., that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and that "all are without excuse, for God has been revealed to all," because of one, singular, human being -- a man -- an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God came into (existence) in the world, or in context, the people of the world.

Agreed, Adam introduced sin into the world.

Your argument is already defeated, for that IS what this passage says.

What argument? I agree Adam introduced sin into the world.

So far, we find that sin has entered the world by one man. So, sin is present in the "world" and because we (rightly) understand that "the world" does not actively "sin" -- it having no capacity to do so -- we also (rightly) understand that in context Paul is writing about sin inhabiting PEOPLE who live in the world, that being his context for the first 5 chapters of this book.

False. Romans 5:12 says no such thing. It does not say sin INHABITS men. It does not even say that sin passed upon man, it says that DEATH passed upon all men.

Let's look at the next clause:

-- And -- a continuation of the former clause, speaking (in context) of the sin that entered the world
-- Death -- complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul
-- By -- with, because of, on account of, through
-- Sin -- an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God

So, in continuation of the former clause, i.e., that by one man sin entered the world, a complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul occur because of, on account of, through,
an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God.

Sin entered the world (people) by a man, and death came as a result of that sin (not the death of the one man, but in reference to all the ones in the world to whom sin entered).

Agreed, sin brings death, the wages of sin is death. But again, this verse does not say sin passed on all men, it says that death passed on all men because all men have sinned. Huge difference.

Your case is further weakened, for now not only sin but death is in all the world.

Weakened? I agree that sin brings death.

Next clause:

-- And -- a continuation of the former clause
-- So -- because of, on account of
-- Death -- complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul
-- Passed -- to travel the road that leads to, to go the way of, to walk or journey, to travel
-- On -- preposition, into, onto, towards
-- All -- literally, every
-- Men -- "anthropos" -- human beings

So, because of what came before, i.e., "that by one man sin entered the world, a complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul occur because of, on account of, through, an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God sin entered the world (people) by a man, and death came as a result of that sin (not the death of the one man, but in reference to all the ones in the world to whom sin entered)," complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul traveled or went the way of, passed into or towards every human being.

Again, I agree that Adam introduced sin, and death came by sin, but this verse does not say sin passed upon all men, it says death passed upon all men because or for that all have sinned. You cannot seem to grasp the difference, and it is major.

Still haven't helped your cause...

And finally, the conclusion of the matter:

-- For -- on, becasue, to, by
-- That -- pronoun -- whom, who, which, that
-- All -- literally, every
-- Have -- action -- past, accomplished
-- Sinned -- an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God

Because of (everything that came before), whom is all, every one, in an accomplished past action, have sinned, plural, indivual acts of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God.

Your case is closed.

False. It does not say all men sinned in Adam. It says death passed upon all men because all men have sinned.

One cannot grasp the later clause and use it as a lever to make the first clause inconsequential. The ordering of the Greek does not allow that and in this case the ordering of the English is identical.

:12 διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι’ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον

Greek is meaningless to me and does not prove your point. I have no way to know if you interpreted the Greek properly.

 

[DHK]

Lots of words, but little substance. Here is the only statement you made I want you to explain to me;

What exactly do you mean by "all men have sin"? Where did we get this sin?

(Jer 13:23) Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

The Ethiopian is born with black skin and is accustomed to it.
The leopard is born with spots and is accustomed to is.
Mankind is born with a sin nature and is accustomed to sinning.

This cannot be refuted. It can only be denied or rationalized away (which I am certain you will try to do).

Explain that, and I'll explain how Eze 18:20 refutes it.

Be my guest. But DO NOT, under any circumstances, take Scripture out of context.

 

[Winman]

(Jer 13:23) Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

The Ethiopian is born with black skin and is accustomed to it.
The leopard is born with spots and is accustomed to is.
Mankind is born with a sin nature and is accustomed to sinning.

This cannot be refuted. It can only be denied or rationalized away (which I am certain you will try to do).

We've been through this countless times. Man is born flesh with lusts and desires. Adam and Eve were flesh with lusts and desires, yet God called them very good. Jesus came in the flesh and had lusts and desires, yet was without sin. Sinful is not something you are, it is something you do. When a person commits actual sin, then they become a sinner and are sinful. And the word "accustomed" means learned behavior, look it up in any dictionary.

Be my guest. But DO NOT, under any circumstances, take Scripture out of context.

I already did, and my interpretation agreed almost perfectly with Matthew Henry's, a notable scholar of the scriptures. You simply refuse to see any interpretation that does not agree with your PERSONAL interpretation of the scriptures. God does not impute anyone's sin to another person. You were not born with the guilt of Adam's sin, you were not condemned and spiritually dead because of Adam. God said the soul that sinneth, it shall die. A newborn baby cannot sin, the scriptures themselves show little children do not know between good and evil. A person must mature to the point where they understand between good and evil, and then when they willingly and knowingly sin, then they become a sinner and spiritually die. And the more they sin afterward, the more they become accustomed to sin.

There is no more reason to go on, we will not agree. But you can get your last word if you wish.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

(Jer 13:23) Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

The Ethiopian is born with black skin and is accustomed to it.
The leopard is born with spots and is accustomed to is.
Mankind is born with a sin nature and is accustomed to sinning.

This cannot be refuted. It can only be denied or rationalized away (which I am certain you will try to do).

Be my guest. But DO NOT, under any circumstances, take Scripture out of context.

BRAVO....... Excuse the pun, "Spot on" :laugh:

 

[glfredrick]

Greek is meaningless to me and does not prove your point. I have no way to know if you interpreted the Greek properly.

This particular statement on your part explains much...

You don't really care at all what Scripture says, nor how commentators derive a proper exegesis of Scripture, and the only way one can get at the truth and bottom line of Scripture is to go back to examine the VERY precise original language.

Earlier in this thread you used the Eastern Church's view of Greek to try to refute the position DHK and I are taking here against you. Your reason was that the Eastern Church read the text in Greek while the Western Church read the text in Latin.

Now, when it is convinient -- and when the Greek exegesis shows that you are incorrect you no longer care for the Greek.

I am done arguing with you here, for I find the Scriptures to be plain on your account:

Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν, μηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων μήποτε καταπατήσωσιν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ στραφέντες ῥήξωσιν ὑμᾶς

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This particular statement on your part explains much...

You don't really care at all what Scripture says, nor how commentators derive a proper exegesis of Scripture, and the only way one can get at the truth and bottom line of Scripture is to go back to examine the VERY precise original language.

Earlier in this thread you used the Eastern Church's view of Greek to try to refute the position DHK and I are taking here against you. Your reason was that the Eastern Church read the text in Greek while the Western Church read the text in Latin.

Now, when it is convinient -- and when the Greek exegesis shows that you are incorrect you no longer care for the Greek.

I am done arguing with you here, for I find the Scriptures to be plain on your account:

Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν, μηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων μήποτε καταπατήσωσιν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ στραφέντες ῥήξωσιν ὑμᾶς

Well said....even though I cant understand the last line....:laugh:

 

[DHK]

We've been through this countless times. Man is born flesh with lusts and desires. Adam and Eve were flesh with lusts and desires, yet God called them very good. Jesus came in the flesh and had lusts and desires, yet was without sin. Sinful is not something you are, it is something you do. When a person commits actual sin, then they become a sinner and are sinful. And the word "accustomed" means learned behavior, look it up in any dictionary.

Spots are something you find at birth.
Black skin is something you find at birth.
A sinful nature is something you find at birth.
All three get accustomed to their respective natures.
Your forced interpretation doesn't fit.

I already did, and my interpretation agreed almost perfectly with Matthew Henry's, a notable scholar of the scriptures. You simply refuse to see any interpretation that does not agree with your PERSONAL interpretation of the scriptures. God does not impute anyone's sin to another person. You were not born with the guilt of Adam's sin, you were not condemned and spiritually dead because of Adam. God said the soul that sinneth, it shall die. A newborn baby cannot sin, the scriptures themselves show little children do not know between good and evil. A person must mature to the point where they understand between good and evil, and then when they willingly and knowingly sin, then they become a sinner and spiritually die. And the more they sin afterward, the more they become accustomed to sin.

There is no more reason to go on, we will not agree. But you can get your last word if you wish.

Let me say this again. Matthew Henry is a devotional commentary, not an exegetical commentary. You can do better than that. MH for the purposes of his devotions tends to spiritualize things. Look in some good exegetical commentaries and see what you find.

The soul that sinneth it shall die--physically by capital punishment--civil law. A murderer was stoned to death. But his child child not infant would not bear the sin of that father. You don't get that because you ignore the context. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Just because a person (soul's) parent is a witch, doesn't mean he or she is. The witch shall die, not his or her offspring. That is the meaning, but you will not read the context. What do you have against the Calvinist that you have to take the Scripture out of context to defend your position. That is a despicable use of Scripture.

 

[convicted1]

Adam's sin procured death for all mankind. This is talking about physical death, the fleshly frame, if you will. We die spiritually when God accounts/imputes sin unto us. To know to do good, and doeth it not, to him is sin. Where does even a fetus know anything good or evil?

 

[DHK]

Adam's sin procured death for all mankind. This is talking about physical death, the fleshly frame, if you will. We die spiritually when God accounts/imputes sin unto us. To know to do good, and doeth it not, to him is sin. Where does even a fetus know anything good or evil?

It has nothing to do with knowledge. They "inherited" a sin nature. The do wrong from the day that they are born--speaking lies. One doesn't have to teach them to do that. One must teach them to tell the truth however. Why is that?

 

[convicted1]

It has nothing to do with knowledge. They "inherited" a sin nature. The do wrong from the day that they are born--speaking lies. One doesn't have to teach them to do that. One must teach them to tell the truth however. Why is that?

What lies do they "speak" from the very moment of birth? Agoo? Ga ga? Blrrrrbbbb? Glub? Plppphhsssh? Is this speaking lies? From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. What's in their heart to speak lies? Please enlighten us.

 

[convicted1]

It has nothing to do with knowledge. They "inherited" a sin nature. The do wrong from the day that they are born--speaking lies. One doesn't have to teach them to do that. One must teach them to tell the truth however. Why is that?

These are all traits that describe the fleshly frame, and not their soul. Their soul comes from God. If the soul comes in an already dead(spiritually seperated from God)state, then OS lays sin in God's lap. Are you willing to accept this?

 

[The Biblicist]

What lies do they "speak" from the very moment of birth? Agoo? Ga ga? Blrrrrbbbb? Glub? Plppphhsssh? Is this speaking lies? From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. What's in their heart to speak lies? Please enlighten us.

Do you actually believe that lying must be spoken in understandable language? Have you ever had an infant cry as though they were dying when in reality they were wanting simply to be picked up? You picked them up because the vehement cry decieved you into thinking that something more serious was wrong!

The idea "from the womb" means that lying is not something that comes by training or by observation but comes with the nature they are born with.

Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

 

[convicted1]

Do you actually believe that lying must be spoken in understandable language? Have you ever had an infant cry as though they were dying when in reality they were wanting simply to be picked up? You picked them up because the vehement cry decieved you into thinking that something more serious was wrong!

The idea "from the womb" means that lying is not something that comes by training or by observation but comes with the nature they are born with.

Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

Does this lying, reprobate new born baby know it is lying? To know to do good, and doeth it not, to him is sin. If this little babe truly knew it was wrong, and still did it, I'd be in 100% agreement with you. That is why they are born in a state of "not guilty", and not innocent. Where there is no law, there is no transgression. What law did this new born reprobated baby willingly and knowingly break?

 

[glfredrick]

Does this lying, reprobate new born baby know it is lying? To know to do good, and doeth it not, to him is sin. If this little babe truly knew it was wrong, and still did it, I'd be in 100% agreement with you. That is why they are born in a state of "not guilty", and not innocent. Where there is no law, there is no transgression. What law did this new born reprobated baby willingly and knowingly break?

Since when is "knowing" that we sin the only possible definition for sin?

Knowing that (or when) we sin is ONE of the possibilities regarding sin, but it is not the ONLY possibility.

We sin by comission -- by doing something that we know that God has commanded us not to do
We sin by ommission -- by not doing something that God asks or commands
We sin on purpose -- we know that what we do is sin, but we do it anyway
We sin by accident -- we do not know that what we do is sin, but we do it anyway.

Sin is described in the Bible in several ways, "missing the mark," "deliberate unrighteous action," "breaking a commandment," "passively neglecting to act in certain situations," "usurping God's authority," "blaspheming God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)," "by "wrongly dividing the Word of Truth," "by angry thoughts," "gossip," "looking at a woman with lust," (and the list can go on for quite some time...).

If it seems like we are doomed to sin and damned for our sin, that is PRECISELY CORRECT. We are!

Our ONLY HOPE is Christ, and not just as a "good example," (calling Him just a good example is in itself a blasphemous sin!) He is our righteousness, and without His imputed righteousness we cannot be one of God's sons.