-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How does a baby sin?
- Thread starter Helen
- Start date
Hi,
I Hope No one Thinks Im Getting On Their Nerves with this...My Focus Is On The Perfect Nature Of God. He Developes a System where All Are Placed Under His Curse.... and Low and Behold Loopholes Are Created For All The "misfortunate and misunderstood".
Original Sin Is The Sin That Originated this Predicament. It Brought On The Environment of Decay and Death. Anything That Is A Part Of This Life;..Its Environment;. Is Cursed...
Everyone. Thats the Beauty of The Curse..It Envelops Its Occupants..Like A Steel Drum.
....We Cant Save Ourselves. Its Impossible.
Babies Dont Sin To Be Called Sinners..
They Were Born Into The Family Called...The Sinners
God Cursed All Of The Family Members Called...The Sinners...No Exceptions..No, Not One
Helen,..Im Not A Universalist..Thats a Cult
Im a Baptist That Believes In "Universal Reconciliation" Of Gods Creation
I Believed It Before a name was ever coined For It...Go Figure.
Before Then..I Was A Strict Legalist..That Allowed For No Loopholes...Go Figure.
Beliefs Change..Thank God.
Me2
I Hope No one Thinks Im Getting On Their Nerves with this...My Focus Is On The Perfect Nature Of God. He Developes a System where All Are Placed Under His Curse.... and Low and Behold Loopholes Are Created For All The "misfortunate and misunderstood".
Original Sin Is The Sin That Originated this Predicament. It Brought On The Environment of Decay and Death. Anything That Is A Part Of This Life;..Its Environment;. Is Cursed...
Everyone. Thats the Beauty of The Curse..It Envelops Its Occupants..Like A Steel Drum.
....We Cant Save Ourselves. Its Impossible.
Babies Dont Sin To Be Called Sinners..
They Were Born Into The Family Called...The Sinners
God Cursed All Of The Family Members Called...The Sinners...No Exceptions..No, Not One
Helen,..Im Not A Universalist..Thats a Cult
Im a Baptist That Believes In "Universal Reconciliation" Of Gods Creation
I Believed It Before a name was ever coined For It...Go Figure.
Before Then..I Was A Strict Legalist..That Allowed For No Loopholes...Go Figure.
Beliefs Change..Thank God.
Me2
Oh, sorry I thought the title of this thread was:
How does a baby sin?
Which I think we pretty much discussed and answered.
-Bill</font>[/QUOTE]Where was it answered. What sin does a baby commit, please?
Or are you saying his existence, because he has a sin nature which he cannot help, is a sin?
WHERE IS THE SIN A BABY CAN DO?
to Me2 -- thank you for the clarification! I see what you are getting at.
[ October 19, 2002, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
A baby isn't necessarily sinning by choice but of the flesh. The babies main objection (until it is taught otherwise) is self-gratification, which leads to many other sins as life goes on. For example: the baby has been fed, burped, clean diaper, loved, etc. Now you lay the baby to bed knowing full well that all needs have been met and the baby cries. At the time the baby cries it is leading you to believe that there is something wrong and if you pick up the baby and it stops crying then the baby through its' cry has lied and will continue this tactic as long as it works. The baby's only possible motive is SELF GRATIFICATION.
If a tiny baby is crying to be held, then he or she should be held. That is not self-gratification in an extraneous sense, but a need being expressed. Babies need to be cuddled and held. They have been intimate with mom for nine months and then separated rather abruptly! Babies, being individuals, react individually to this. My oldest son was fascinated with the world and curious about everything, so holding him was, for him, a chance to see the view! My oldest adopted daughter was frightened at the changes in her life, even at five weeks, and needed a lot of holding until she was more comfortable being independent.
No, it is survival on a baby's part to cry to be held, for without that holding we know they don't do as well. WE might call it self-gratification on the baby's part because the timing is inconvenient for us, but....
No, it is survival on a baby's part to cry to be held, for without that holding we know they don't do as well. WE might call it self-gratification on the baby's part because the timing is inconvenient for us, but....
KenH
Well-Known Member
The baby sinned with Adam. He was right there with him sinning in the Garden of Eden. He was in his loins.
Here's a parallel that might help.
(Hebrews 7:9-10 NKJV) Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, {10} for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
[ October 19, 2002, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
By that logic, Ken, the weight of sin builds on each generation. I not only carry the burden and weight of accountability for Adam's sin, but for the thousands between him and me as well. I can be counted guilty because of ALL their sins.
That is putting me in the place of Jesus, who did that voluntarily.
No. I am affected by Adam's sin in that I was born with a sin nature, but I am not held guilty of sinning myself because of that. Any sins I do are my own.
And yet, all that aside, the price for sins has been paid. So it really is a moot point in the long run. Hold me accountable for Adam's sin if you like, but all sin has been atoned for by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
He did not do a half job. He paid the price, or collected the wages (depending on which picture you prefer) in full.
And that brings up another thought. I know you will say that He only paid for the sins of the elect. Although I disagree heartily with that, let's look at it from that point of view.
How many people can be punished for the criminal act of one in a court of law? We consider it pagan to kill the man's family along with him if he deserves the death penalty.
Can our sense of justice be more merciful or 'fair' than God's? If the father murders the mother, you kill the baby, too?
That is what you are claiming God has done.
To all of us.
And again -- forever again until some Calvinist responds -- what does it mean when Christ says the angels of the little ones always see the face of the Father?
That is putting me in the place of Jesus, who did that voluntarily.
No. I am affected by Adam's sin in that I was born with a sin nature, but I am not held guilty of sinning myself because of that. Any sins I do are my own.
And yet, all that aside, the price for sins has been paid. So it really is a moot point in the long run. Hold me accountable for Adam's sin if you like, but all sin has been atoned for by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
He did not do a half job. He paid the price, or collected the wages (depending on which picture you prefer) in full.
And that brings up another thought. I know you will say that He only paid for the sins of the elect. Although I disagree heartily with that, let's look at it from that point of view.
How many people can be punished for the criminal act of one in a court of law? We consider it pagan to kill the man's family along with him if he deserves the death penalty.
Can our sense of justice be more merciful or 'fair' than God's? If the father murders the mother, you kill the baby, too?
That is what you are claiming God has done.
To all of us.
And again -- forever again until some Calvinist responds -- what does it mean when Christ says the angels of the little ones always see the face of the Father?
KenH
Well-Known Member
No, only one sin was sufficient to set the whole human race on course for eternity in hell.
By the way, I believe that all who die in the womb, in infancy, at a very young age, or who never have sufficient mental capacity are all elect unto salvation. I believe that God regenerates them before they die even though we can never see the fruit of that regeneration on this earth.
Helen, I have told you how a baby sins - by speaking lies (Psalm 58:3). Now it is perfectly fine if you don't agree with me and if you interpret the verse differently - but don't say no one has told you how a baby sins! You did mention that you think the verse means "that lying itself is part of the human nature that is born into us," but the verse does not speak of just having a sin nature, but of actively doing something as soon as birth. At least deal directly with the verse before you dismiss what I have said.
Chet, I agree with you on the context, although I do not think the context will disagree with either your interpretation or mine. As far as translations of this verse, I have checked several. Though I do not agree with your position that the NASB gives the clearest understanding, if the NASB is correct the Psalmist is tracing the origin of their wickedness all the way back to their birth. But the weight of translations, including the NIV which you give, seems to favor the "speaking lies" as being something they are doing as soon as they are born.
Chet, I have read a lot of good posts by you, much with which I agree. But I must say that this statement bothers me. It sounds if you already have a belief and so couldn't possibly think the Bible means something else. Perhaps you can explain in a way that I will better understand.
This is one verse that may be a promise that "the little ones" will be safe in heaven, as David's statement about going to his deceased child. But it is not all that clear. If "angels" means "spirits", as some argue, if would certainly lend a great deal of weight to that interpretation. If "angels" means "angels" (e.g. spirit beings such as Michael & Gabriel) it is a little unclear just exactly how this should be interpreted.
What do you think it means? And how does what it means (or what you think it means) prove whether or not a baby sins?
T
TaterTot
Guest
I wont re-hash scriptures, b/c y'all have done a good job of that. I have 2 babies, 21 months and almost 5 months. The difference in the way they behave is dramatic. One cries when she dislikes something (still a way of communicating, BUT trying to manipulate)The little one cries very rarely. When she does, she either has a stinky diaper, feels bad, or is hungry. I cannot see how this is a sin. She doesnt manipulate or lie, or covet or steal (except she has stolen my heart!). People have told Helen how the sin is inborn, from Adam, etc, but her question was specific - WHAT action does an "arm" baby do that is sinful? No one can give one because there isnt one. Yes, the baby has a sinful nature and WILL sin very soon. My toddler knows how to do so. But is she accountable?? No way. She cant understand her need for salvation yet, or even who God is yet. She can pray, but really its from seeing us do it, not because she fully understands it. We pray before we go to bed, just like we brush teeth before reading our night time books. Its just something we do, to her. She chooses to rebel again ME, not GOD, because she doesnt know Him (unless you are Mormon and were present in the pre-life.)
My wise husband often tell me (re: this board) "You arent going to change their minds!" And I say that "they" arent going to change mine either!
My wise husband often tell me (re: this board) "You arent going to change their minds!" And I say that "they" arent going to change mine either!
g'day mate
New Member
Whilst I dont have the knowledge of most Pastors and hopefully somebody might help me.
I was told that sin is a condition of the blood like many diseases and is past on from one generation to the next. And Christ needed to spread his innocent blood to cleanse us from our sins.
John
I was told that sin is a condition of the blood like many diseases and is past on from one generation to the next. And Christ needed to spread his innocent blood to cleanse us from our sins.
John
Babies don't sin. Nothing a baby does is sin - crying, wetting, etc. Nope, I'd have to say babies don't sin. Can't think of any baby sinning scriptures either.
But babies - like everyone else - have a sin 'nature'. Sure I could agree with that. I know there are scriptures that support the existence of the sin 'nature' even for babies.
So, at some point, and I don't know when that point is reached exactly - the person the baby becomes will eventually sin in action, like everyone else.
But until then, as said, babies don't sin.
If you can think to yourself and conjecture that if you were a baby and could not commit a sinful act because somehow, even though you have a sin nature, that nature hasn't manifested itself outwardly yet, and that therefore you would be innocent of sin, then if you are capable of or in fact have ever thought this, then whatever baby innocence you may have once had is long gone and expired.
Once our evil big brains are capable of or start trying to think like lawyers (which happens at the mysterious 'age of accountability' - exact age I don't know) then we need a saviour!
[ October 20, 2002, 03:33 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Vine ]
But babies - like everyone else - have a sin 'nature'. Sure I could agree with that. I know there are scriptures that support the existence of the sin 'nature' even for babies.
So, at some point, and I don't know when that point is reached exactly - the person the baby becomes will eventually sin in action, like everyone else.
But until then, as said, babies don't sin.
If you can think to yourself and conjecture that if you were a baby and could not commit a sinful act because somehow, even though you have a sin nature, that nature hasn't manifested itself outwardly yet, and that therefore you would be innocent of sin, then if you are capable of or in fact have ever thought this, then whatever baby innocence you may have once had is long gone and expired.
Once our evil big brains are capable of or start trying to think like lawyers (which happens at the mysterious 'age of accountability' - exact age I don't know) then we need a saviour!
[ October 20, 2002, 03:33 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Vine ]
Scott_Bushey
<img src=/scott.jpg>
HankD writes:
Since there are no deeds to condemn the little one,......
Hank, are men condemned for * Their * sin or * because * of sin (Adam)?
Hank also adds:
A little one has not the discernment to know that its self-serving temper tantrum is evil.
Sin is therefore not imputed.
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Scott states:
I see everyone running for cover under Romans 5:13....what about this little gem just a few steps further down the road:
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Matthew Henry writes in regards to the above:
So death passed, that is, a sentence of death was passed, as upon a
criminal, (dielthen) — passed through all men, as an infectious disease
passes through a town, so that none escape it. It is the universal fate,
without exception: death passes upon all. There are common calamities
incident to human life which do abundantly prove this. Death reigned,
v.14. He(Paul)speaks of death as a mighty prince, and his monarchy the most
absolute, universal, and lasting monarchy. None are exempted from its
sceptre; it is a monarchy that will survive all other earthly rule, authority,
and power, for it is the last enemy,
<461526>
1 Corinthians 15:26. Those sons of
Belial that will be subject to no other rule cannot avoid being subject to
this. Now all this we may thank Adam for; from him sin and death
descend. Well may we say, as that good man, observing the change that a
fit of sickness had made in his countenance, O Adam! what hast thou
done?
Further, to clear this, he shows that sin did not commence with the law of
Moses, but was in the world until, or before, that law; therefore that law of
Moses is not the only rule of life, for there was a rule, and that rule was
transgressed, before the law was given. It likewise intimates that we
cannot be justified by our obedience to the law of Moses, any more than
we were condemned by and for our disobedience to it. Sin was in the
world before the law; witness Cain's murder, the apostasy of the old world,
the wickedness of Sodom. His inference hence is, Therefore there was a
law; for sin is not imputed where there is no law. Original sin is a want of
conformity to, and actual sin is a transgression of, the law of God:
therefore all were under some law. His proof of it is, Death reigned from
Adam to Moses, v. 14. It is certain that death could not have reigned if sin
had not set up the throne for him. This proves that sin was in the world
before the law, and original sin, for death reigned over those that had not
sinned any actual sin, that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgression, never sinned in their own persons as Adam did — which is
to be understood of infants, that were never guilty of actual sin, and yet
died, because Adam's sin was imputed to them. This reign of death seems
especially to refer to those violent and extraordinary judgments which
were long before Moses, as the deluge and the destruction of Sodom,
which involved infants. It is a great proof of original sin that little
children, who were never guilty of any actual transgression, are yet liable
to very terrible diseases, casualties, and deaths, which could by no means
be reconciled with the justice and righteousness of God if they were not
chargeable with guilt.
Charles Hodge writes :
2. If ver. 12 teaches that men are subject to death on account of the sin of
Adam, if this is the doctrine of the whole passage, and if, as is
admitted, vers. 13, 14 are designed to prove the assertion of ver. 12,
then is it necessary that the apostle should show that death comes on
those who have no personal or actual sins to answer for.
This he does: ‘Death reigns not only over those who have never broken
any positive law, but even over those who have never sinned as Adam did;
that is, who have never in their own persons violated any law, by which
their exposure to death can be accounted for.’ All the arguments, therefore,
which go to establish the interpretation given above of ver. 12, or the
correctness of the exhibition of the course of the apostle’s argument, and
the design of the whole passage, bear with all their force in support of the
view here given of this clause. The opposite interpretation, as was
attempted to be proved above, rests on a false exegesis of ver 12, and a
false view of the context. Almost all the objections to this interpretation,
being founded on misapprehension, are answered by the mere statement of
the case. The simple doctrine and argument of the apostle is, that THERE
ARE PENAL EVILS WHICH COME UPON MEN ANTECEDENT TO ANY
TRANSGRESSIONS OF THEIR OWN; AND AS THE INFLICTION OF THESE EVILS
IMPLIES A VIOLATION OF LAW, IT FOLLOWS THAT THEY ARE REGARDED AND
TREATED AS SINNERS, ON THE GROUND OF THE DISOBEDIENCE OF ANOTHER.
In other words, it was “by the offense of one man that judgment came on
all men to condemnation.” It is of course not implied in this statement or
argument, that men are not now, or were not from Adam to Moses,
punishable for their own sins, but simply that they are subject to penal
evils, which cannot be accounted for on the ground of their personal
transgressions, or their hereditary depravity. This statement, which
contains the whole doctrine of imputation, is so obviously contained in the
argument of the apostle, and stands out so conspicuously in the Bible, and
is so fully established by the history of the world, that it is frequently and
freely admitted by the great majority of commentators.
Helen writes:
Scott, the way Calvinists use it is in contradiction to the Biblical message that all who believe are saved.
Scott reiterates:
Helen, get out the Websters. Election cannot mean what you define it as. The term is excluding in itself. Changing the meaning, renders the term illogical. This is the *snafu* in the whole scope of Arminian-ology. Elections in countries where presidents elect themselves are not elections at all...they are dictatorships. We elect ourselves. We save ourselves. This notion IS unbiblical.
Chet writes:
People go to hell because of the rejection of Jesus Christ as their needed savior.
Scott asks:
Chet, does not this idea exclude also those people (adults) who have died having never heard the gospel of grace? Will they also, go directly to Heaven?
[ October 20, 2002, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]
Since there are no deeds to condemn the little one,......
Hank, are men condemned for * Their * sin or * because * of sin (Adam)?
Hank also adds:
A little one has not the discernment to know that its self-serving temper tantrum is evil.
Sin is therefore not imputed.
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Scott states:
I see everyone running for cover under Romans 5:13....what about this little gem just a few steps further down the road:
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Matthew Henry writes in regards to the above:
So death passed, that is, a sentence of death was passed, as upon a
criminal, (dielthen) — passed through all men, as an infectious disease
passes through a town, so that none escape it. It is the universal fate,
without exception: death passes upon all. There are common calamities
incident to human life which do abundantly prove this. Death reigned,
v.14. He(Paul)speaks of death as a mighty prince, and his monarchy the most
absolute, universal, and lasting monarchy. None are exempted from its
sceptre; it is a monarchy that will survive all other earthly rule, authority,
and power, for it is the last enemy,
<461526>
1 Corinthians 15:26. Those sons of
Belial that will be subject to no other rule cannot avoid being subject to
this. Now all this we may thank Adam for; from him sin and death
descend. Well may we say, as that good man, observing the change that a
fit of sickness had made in his countenance, O Adam! what hast thou
done?
Further, to clear this, he shows that sin did not commence with the law of
Moses, but was in the world until, or before, that law; therefore that law of
Moses is not the only rule of life, for there was a rule, and that rule was
transgressed, before the law was given. It likewise intimates that we
cannot be justified by our obedience to the law of Moses, any more than
we were condemned by and for our disobedience to it. Sin was in the
world before the law; witness Cain's murder, the apostasy of the old world,
the wickedness of Sodom. His inference hence is, Therefore there was a
law; for sin is not imputed where there is no law. Original sin is a want of
conformity to, and actual sin is a transgression of, the law of God:
therefore all were under some law. His proof of it is, Death reigned from
Adam to Moses, v. 14. It is certain that death could not have reigned if sin
had not set up the throne for him. This proves that sin was in the world
before the law, and original sin, for death reigned over those that had not
sinned any actual sin, that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgression, never sinned in their own persons as Adam did — which is
to be understood of infants, that were never guilty of actual sin, and yet
died, because Adam's sin was imputed to them. This reign of death seems
especially to refer to those violent and extraordinary judgments which
were long before Moses, as the deluge and the destruction of Sodom,
which involved infants. It is a great proof of original sin that little
children, who were never guilty of any actual transgression, are yet liable
to very terrible diseases, casualties, and deaths, which could by no means
be reconciled with the justice and righteousness of God if they were not
chargeable with guilt.
Charles Hodge writes :
2. If ver. 12 teaches that men are subject to death on account of the sin of
Adam, if this is the doctrine of the whole passage, and if, as is
admitted, vers. 13, 14 are designed to prove the assertion of ver. 12,
then is it necessary that the apostle should show that death comes on
those who have no personal or actual sins to answer for.
This he does: ‘Death reigns not only over those who have never broken
any positive law, but even over those who have never sinned as Adam did;
that is, who have never in their own persons violated any law, by which
their exposure to death can be accounted for.’ All the arguments, therefore,
which go to establish the interpretation given above of ver. 12, or the
correctness of the exhibition of the course of the apostle’s argument, and
the design of the whole passage, bear with all their force in support of the
view here given of this clause. The opposite interpretation, as was
attempted to be proved above, rests on a false exegesis of ver 12, and a
false view of the context. Almost all the objections to this interpretation,
being founded on misapprehension, are answered by the mere statement of
the case. The simple doctrine and argument of the apostle is, that THERE
ARE PENAL EVILS WHICH COME UPON MEN ANTECEDENT TO ANY
TRANSGRESSIONS OF THEIR OWN; AND AS THE INFLICTION OF THESE EVILS
IMPLIES A VIOLATION OF LAW, IT FOLLOWS THAT THEY ARE REGARDED AND
TREATED AS SINNERS, ON THE GROUND OF THE DISOBEDIENCE OF ANOTHER.
In other words, it was “by the offense of one man that judgment came on
all men to condemnation.” It is of course not implied in this statement or
argument, that men are not now, or were not from Adam to Moses,
punishable for their own sins, but simply that they are subject to penal
evils, which cannot be accounted for on the ground of their personal
transgressions, or their hereditary depravity. This statement, which
contains the whole doctrine of imputation, is so obviously contained in the
argument of the apostle, and stands out so conspicuously in the Bible, and
is so fully established by the history of the world, that it is frequently and
freely admitted by the great majority of commentators.
Helen writes:
Scott, the way Calvinists use it is in contradiction to the Biblical message that all who believe are saved.
Scott reiterates:
Helen, get out the Websters. Election cannot mean what you define it as. The term is excluding in itself. Changing the meaning, renders the term illogical. This is the *snafu* in the whole scope of Arminian-ology. Elections in countries where presidents elect themselves are not elections at all...they are dictatorships. We elect ourselves. We save ourselves. This notion IS unbiblical.
Chet writes:
People go to hell because of the rejection of Jesus Christ as their needed savior.
Scott asks:
Chet, does not this idea exclude also those people (adults) who have died having never heard the gospel of grace? Will they also, go directly to Heaven?
[ October 20, 2002, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]
I am not sure what babies some have been
hanging out with, but among those babies I
have known, none have sinned, and none have
lied.
However, of the adults I have known, who deal
with babies, some of them have certainly
sinned against babies by:
* ignoring the babies' needs because they are
too selfish to acknowledge anyone or anything
outside of themselves or anyone who is needier
* constantly trying to make the babies conform
to the adults' own little narcissistic needs
* considering the baby's actions to be evil when
the baby had a hard time conforming to the
adults' narcissism.
Don't you just hate it when someone comes
up to a new parent and asks, "Is s/he good?"
and they intend, "Does s/he cry a lot?" Odd how
so many adults connect a baby's crying with
being "bad"' or sinful.
[ October 20, 2002, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]
hanging out with, but among those babies I
have known, none have sinned, and none have
lied.
However, of the adults I have known, who deal
with babies, some of them have certainly
sinned against babies by:
* ignoring the babies' needs because they are
too selfish to acknowledge anyone or anything
outside of themselves or anyone who is needier
* constantly trying to make the babies conform
to the adults' own little narcissistic needs
* considering the baby's actions to be evil when
the baby had a hard time conforming to the
adults' narcissism.
Don't you just hate it when someone comes
up to a new parent and asks, "Is s/he good?"
and they intend, "Does s/he cry a lot?" Odd how
so many adults connect a baby's crying with
being "bad"' or sinful.
[ October 20, 2002, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]
Scott_Bushey
<img src=/scott.jpg>
Abyah writes:
Don't you just hate it when someone comes
up to a new parent and asks, "Is s/he good?"
and they intend, "Does s/he cry a lot?" Odd how
so many adults connect a baby's crying with
being "bad"' or sinful.
Scott replies:
Abiyah,
Some *crying* is sinful. It all depends upon what the infant is crying about. It is much like my anger. Sometimes the things I get angry over are sinful. Helen had previously brought up the point that anger "without cause" is the only time anger is sin. I might disect this a little further, anger that does not have Gods intention and desires foundating it, is sin.
Don't you just hate it when someone comes
up to a new parent and asks, "Is s/he good?"
and they intend, "Does s/he cry a lot?" Odd how
so many adults connect a baby's crying with
being "bad"' or sinful.
Scott replies:
Abiyah,
Some *crying* is sinful. It all depends upon what the infant is crying about. It is much like my anger. Sometimes the things I get angry over are sinful. Helen had previously brought up the point that anger "without cause" is the only time anger is sin. I might disect this a little further, anger that does not have Gods intention and desires foundating it, is sin.
Doesn't matter if they have sinned or not, they are guilty because of Adam's sin.
http://www.emmanuel-baptist.org/sermons/Romans/Romans31.htm
http://www.emmanuel-baptist.org/sermons/Romans/Romans31.htm
Scott_Bushey
<img src=/scott.jpg>
Abiyah writes:
In all my years, I have never met a baby like that.
Not once.
Scott suprisingly inquires:
You have never met a baby that cries?
Crying equates displeasure, i.e. pain, hunger, discomfort, etc.
Displeasure must be comprised within the guidelines of, "witout cause or Godly intentions...selfless" or is it sin.
[ October 20, 2002, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]
In all my years, I have never met a baby like that.
Not once.
Scott suprisingly inquires:
You have never met a baby that cries?
Crying equates displeasure, i.e. pain, hunger, discomfort, etc.
Displeasure must be comprised within the guidelines of, "witout cause or Godly intentions...selfless" or is it sin.
[ October 20, 2002, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]