Featured How human was Jesus/how much like Jesus are we

He didn't say he wasn't; therefore you haven't proved your case.

You miss some very obvious and important facts about both this passage and this chapter.
First go to verse one to get the context:
Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
--Paul is speaking to Jewish believers. If you read the last few chapters of Acts you find that when Paul arrived in Rome he called the Jews together and tells them of his situation. They hadn't heard anything from the Jews of Jerusalem. He arranges a second meeting with them where he preaches to a large gathering of Jews. Some believed and some didn't. The church at Rome had a fair percentage of Jewish believers in it. They were confused as to how the law related to them, now that they were under grace.
Paul refers to the law 27 times in this chapter alone.
He also gives his own testimony.

You said: "He also learned what sin is through the law."
What law? We all learn sin through the law--Romans 2:14,15. It is the law written in our hearts. Our conscience bears witness to it. Paul knew it was wrong to lust, covet, murder, before he ever learned the Ten Commandments.
He knew as an infant that it was wrong to lie.

Your problem is in definitions. Death does not mean a corpse or lifeless.
Death means separation. It can also mean inoperative.

Romans 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
--Without the law sin was dormant. It was inoperative. It doesn't mean it was absent.
From Thayer's

--When the commandment came, that is when he was convicted by the Holy Spirit and the Law became very much alive to him his sin became alive to him. It was no longer dormant or inactive and inoperative. He saw himself for what he was. This led to his conversion.
(This speaks in favor or original sin and the depravity of man not against it).

Yes, that is what every Jew thought. But the law can only lead to spiritual death--separation from God eternally. Death is separation.

People are born with sin. The Bible does not say that they are not.
What happened to Adam. God said:
"In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."
Adam died that day. The question is, How did Adam die? Please explain!
He died spiritually. He was separated from God. His fellowship was cut off until God himself restored it by providing an animal sacrifice and shedding blood.

What is there to refute? Read it without bias and you can understand it.

From verse 13 onward Paul gives his testimony as a saved individual and the struggle that he has between the carnal and spiritual nature that everyone has. That carnal nature we have from birth.

 

Why are we talking about Paul instead of the two babies?

Paul thought he was alive. Then when he learned the law he found out he being alive in the flesh was in reality, relative to eternity, dead in trespasses and sins. Dying thou dost die.

Also you -- being dead in the trespasses and the sins, Eph 2:1

Born subject to, dying thou dost die, because of Adam.

To inherit eternal life one must be born twice.

 

You wanted to know if we are born dead in sins, Paul shows we are not.

Baloney, Paul did not say he "thought" he was alive, Paul clearly said he was "alive" without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he "died". You are adding to the word of God.

Yes, that we "walked" in (Eph 2:2). Can a newborn baby walk? There is a reason the scriptures say we "walked" in sin. And walking is something we learn to do.

The wages of "sin" is death, not the wages of being born. Adam and Eve did not spiritually die until they sinned, but sin is not imputed when there is no law, therefore a newborn baby cannot be a sinner, because he cannot understand between good and evil (Deu 1:39, Isa 7:16). This is why Paul was alive without the law once. But once Paul learned the law and what sin is, he became accountable and spiritually died. God does not punish a baby for what he cannot know and understand.

Only because a person has spiritually died. A baby that dies in the womb or before he could ever sin is not lost and does not need to be born again. This is why Jesus told his disciples they must be "converted" and become "as" little children to enter heaven.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.


If we must be converted and become as little children to enter heaven, then obviously little children are not lost in sin.

Isn't that so?

 

Winman,

This is by far one of your worst ideas on scripture and you proudly repeat it over and over...Dhk and percho have shot more holes in your idea than a piece of swiss cheese,
read and learn something for a change.

 

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, Gal 3:22
For the wages of sin is death; Rom 6:23

I ask and no response but here are my thoughts.
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Heb 9:27

And as it is appointed unto men once, (before the foundation of the world), to die, but after this the judgment:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Cor 15:22

I understand; Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
; to say the exact same thing as - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John 3:5,7 One becomes as a child by being born.

Meaning:
Neither can they die (the wages of sin) any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the (born) children of God, being the (born) children of the resurrection. Luke 20:36

 

Paul DOES show he was not born dead in sin, he said he was ALIVE without the law once. If Original Sin were true, then no man could EVER claim he was ALIVE as Paul did.

This does not change the fact that Paul tells us he was ALIVE without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. He had clearly explained in verse 7 that he learned what sin was through the law, he would have not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

It was learning the law that made Paul accountable and convicted him as a sinner, causing his spiritual death. Up until that time he was spiritually alive.

Paul most likely first learned the law from his parents who taught him not to lie or steal, etc... I am sure he learned the Mosaic law from his parents being a Jew. It was learning the law that made him accountable and caused him to spiritually die.

As for Romans 2, Paul was speaking of the Gentiles who did not have the Mosaic law. Nevertheless, as a Gentile becomes older and matures, he too understands many basic sins, such as lying, stealing, committing adultery, although he may not be aware that envy is a sin as Paul learned from the Mosaic law.

And Paul clearly said these Gentiles perished without the law. Did he say they perished because they were dead in Adam's sin? NO, he did not so much as mention Adam until the 5th chapter. He said these Gentiles perished because they personally broke the law written on their heart and conscience. They did not spiritually die because of Adam.

I understand that death means to be separated from God, to be at enmity with him, to be condemned. This changes absolutely NOTHING.

Total baloney, if Original Sin were true, no man could EVER say he was alive once. And Paul did not mistakenly say he "thought" he was alive as you and others attempt to pervert scripture. He plainly said he was ALIVE, but when he learned the law he was convicted as a sinner and DIED. You have to be alive to die.

Wrong, people are not born with sin, Paul clearly said Jacob and Esau had done no evil when they were in their mother's womb.

And you will twist scripture, but Ezekiel 18:20 clearly says the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father or vice versa. God does not punish a person for the sins his father or any other person committed, each man dies for his own sin.

You are the one with a bias. If a person had never heard of this issue and read Romans 7, they would naturally believe that Paul said he was ALIVE until he learned the commandments. Nobody would believe the convoluted story you and others make up that Paul simply "imagined" he was alive.

No, a person would believe Paul for what he plainly said, he was alive without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died.

No unbiased person would believe your version whatsoever.

I have never met so many persons who profess to be Christians who do not believe what the scriptures plainly and simply say as I have here at BB.

 

Not babies, Paul clearly said Jacob and Esau had done no sin in their mother's womb. They were not under sin.

Yes, but Jacob and Esau had not committed sin. If they had died, they would have been without sin. Literally BILLIONS of babies have died before or shortly after birth before they could sin.

Yes, MEN, not babies and very little children who do not know right from wrong.

Again, MEN, not babies.

This verse refutes your view, the word "die" is FUTURE TENSE. It shows everyone is born alive, but shall die.

This verse is only speaking of physical death, but if it were speaking of spiritual death it would destroy your view.

Yes, but he also told his disciples they must be CONVERTED to BECOME as LITTLE CHILDREN to enter heaven. Therefore little children are without sin, no sinner enters heaven.

All persons, including babies die physically as a consequence of Adam's sin. But they are not sinners. God did not punish the children of the Jews who sinned in the wilderness because they did not understand between good and evil in that day. God told Jonah that he SHOULD spare Nineveh because there were 120,000 little children there who could not discern between their right hand and left hand and much cattle. These children were just as innocent as the cattle that cannot sin. And Paul said he was alive without the law once, but when the law came, sin revived and he DIED.

Paul was not born knowing the law, he learned it as a young man just as all Jewish children do. The Gentiles are not born knowing right from wrong, but learn it from their parents after they are 4 or 5 years old. I believe from scripture that God does not hold children accountable until they are about 10 years old, though it would vary from child to child.

 

They have done no such thing, and I have presented much scripture that supports babies are not sinners and they are not born dead in sin. Scripture shows children are not accountable until they understand between good and evil.

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.

The Promised Land is an OT figure of heaven. God did not allow the Jews who sinned in the wilderness to enter the Promised Land, but he did allow all the children who had no KNOWLEDGE between good and evil in that day to go in.

Plain as day.

 

Paul claimed he was alive apart from the law, more accurately put.

Romans 7:9 I was alive apart from the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (WEB)
--It doesn't mean he didn't have the law. He did. All men do, whether it is in their hearts or written for them in the form of the Ten Commandments.
He wasn't dead to the law. He knew very much what is said and what it meant.

He died. He was already dead in God's sight if this is his testimony of salvation. Verses 7-13 speak of the relation of the law to the unsaved Jew. They are separated from God, thus dead, spiritually. The law cannot save.
When it comes to salvation, guess what? The law still cannot save!
It was not sin that revived him.
Look again.
(ESV) I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
It was sin that came alive. He saw himself as he really was. He saw that indeed he was separated from God, a guilty sinner in need of a Savior.
The purpose of the law is to be a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. It was just doing its job.
--At this point A.T. Robertson says:

Most of us have to hear the gospel many times before we realize our guilt before God and our need to be saved, or before we actually get saved.

Paul knew as far back as his memory would allow that he was a sinner. He was a sinner from birth. David confirms that in Psalm 51:5. Paul never, at any time, declares himself innocent from all sin.
We all are under the law, whether innate or learned.

It was in his heart first, just as it is in every man's heart (Rom.2:14,15).

God made all men equal. If you really believe what you are saying here, then the inference is that God made Jews without consciences--a very anti-semitic remark.

From infancy they know how to lie. They don't need the Mosaic law to sin.

They died because of sin. They sinned because they were prone to sin. They were prone to sin because of the sin nature they inherited from Adam.

If you are consistent in your terminology it changes a lot.

Why? What was the state of Adam when he talked with God though he had already died? He was dead and alive at the same time. Death means separation, not lifeless.

Paul is giving his testimony, and he is speaking to Jewish believers.
He was alive under the law, Jewish law. He kept the law. His father was Abraham. He was of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee of the Pharisees, under the law blameless. That was his testimony, the same that he gives here. The law gave him religious light. He was alive under that law.

But the Holy Spirit came and showed him how the law condemned, then sin came alive, and he died--felt entirely alone and separated from God.

non sequitor.

Another non sequitor.
These verses have nothing to do with the subject. They are so off topic that it is ridiculous.
For example here is what Ez.18:20 is talking about:
My friend's father died because of drunkenness. He died because of liver failure--cirrhosis of the liver.
Accordingly you teach that if Original Sin were true then his son should die of liver failure as well. That is not what this verse teaches. My friend is not going to die of liver failure. Nor is he a drunkard. The sin of his father or even the consequences of his sin do not pass on to his son. Why should they? That is what this verse is speaking of. It has nothing to do with OS.

He was separated from God. He thought he was alive in his self-righteous religion as he persecuted Christians. He even expresses himself as such.

Philippians 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
--Was he blameless?

"Sin sprang alive," convicted him, and he died--saw himself for who he really was--saw himself as a sinner separated from God. That is death.

 

Winman.....I am going to throw the towel in for you...DHK is thrashing you

 

Here hear!

I have to agree with Winman on this. It makes little sense to say that children who die before they have a chance to hear the word and receive [accept - my term] Jesus as Savior. I do not believe that children are sin free. We have all been born into sin, and that equals being dead in sin, and that includes children. Still, I think God displays a certain leniency towards the children who die in their early days on earth! When you think about it...we all die in sin! But those who have called upon Jesus, will have their sins pardoned by the blood, and they will live with Him forever, the Holy bride of the Lamb!

What pastor is going to counsel the grieving parents of a child or infant, and not tell them that their child is with the Lord? I use Duet, and Luke as my reference points!

He is God and He can do that if He so wishes ... in fact He can do anything He wants! Who is going to debate and argue with Him? After all He is God! And God, while He is set in HIs ways, is also flexable. So, in my way of thinking, the verse Winman quotes stands alone, saying that there is a day when kids can discern between good and evil, and on that day [which is different for all children] they are than accountable!

I think Jesus always demonstrated a certain tolerance and love for the little ones, after all it was Jesus who did say in Luke 18:16 [various versions all suggest the same thing]:

New International Version - "But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

New Living Translation - "Then Jesus called for the children and said to the disciples, "Let the children come to me. Don't stop them! For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children."

English Standard Version - "But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God."

New American Standard Bible - "But Jesus called for them, saying, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

King James Bible - "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."

I would have to say that the eternity of the child's soul is a grey area, and I prefer to err on the side of Grace being granted to the child that has not reached the age of accountability.

I score this one for Winman! :thumbs:

Links to ponder:

http://christianity.stackexchange.c...god-punish-babies-and-children-who-die-in-sin

MY FAVORITE: http://www.examiner.com/article/at-what-age-does-a-child-become-accountable-for-sin

GRACE to YOU - Age of Accountability: http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A264

http://www.gotquestions.org/parents-sin.html

 

This entire topic is a red herring on Winman's part. It is a different topic to be properly discussed in another thread. No one here is discussing "the salvation of children," and very few if any would deny that infants when they die would go to heaven. Thus there is nothing to debate.
Often Winman, in such a debate will take a premise: If OS is true...then....
His conclusion will be a false conclusion which he will attribute to Calvinists and others that don't believe the same as he does, including me (and I am not a Calvinist).

First, we have the evidence of David.
David knew that he would see his infant in the after-life, and he was sure of his own salvation. David said after his child died:
"He shall not come to me, but I shall go to him."
--Time and time again, David threw himself on the mercy of God; we must do the same.
"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right."

Second the passage that is being taught, and passages like it, are being taken out of context.
"But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Luke 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
--Note the context. Verse 16 was quoted but not verse 17.
It is in verse 17 where we find the principle or reason why Jesus is using this opportunity as an object lesson for teaching.
One needs to receive the Kingdom of God (or Christ) AS a little child.
How does a little child receive things? He receives things in child-like faith, believing that what he is receiving is good for him, will not harm him, and that he can trust the one giving him the gift he is receiving.
Who does he trust more than any other? His parents; those who love him most.
There is no one in this world that loves you any more than Christ. He loved you enough to die for you. You can trust him. He pleads to give you the gift of eternal life. As a small child implicitly trusts his earthly father, you can trust your heavenly father. Receive the gift of eternal life by trusting Christ as your Savior. The faith is a child like faith that one must have, and that is what Christ is speaking about.

In no way does this passage speak about Original Sin.
That is just a plain red herring, and should not enter into this discussion at all.

 

Thank you, but I am quite satisfied with the KJB which says Paul was alive WITHOUT the law once.

He wasn't born KNOWING the law, he was born without KNOWLEDGE of the law. It is the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil that makes you accountable.

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.

God did not punish the children of the Jews who sinned in the wilderness. Why? Because no law existed? NO, because they had no KNOWLEDGE of the law in that day. Likewise, no person is born knowing God's laws and do not become accountable until they learn and understand them.

This is what Paul means by being WITHOUT the law once.

He died when he understood good and evil just like Adam and Eve.

No kidding.

Who said Paul revived? Not me. It was sin that revived. You intentionally misrepresent me.

No, you go back and read again, from the beginning I said SIN REVIVED, not Paul. Sin has no power, no authority to kill without the law. I understood this as a child, but not a NEWBORN child.

Yes, all men have a innate sense of right and wrong, but even that takes time to mature, a newborn baby does not understand what a lie is, or what to steal means.

Boy, really putting words in other's mouths today aren't we?

Nonsense, tell a newborn baby not to lie and he will not have a clue what you are saying to him. Pure baloney.

All men physically die because of the curse in the garden, but men only spiritually die when they know right from wrong.

I am more consistent than you, I don't say that scripture means the exact opposite of what it plainly says as you do. Paul said he was alive without the law once, you say he only "thought" he was alive. I am FAR more consistent than you.

What are you talking about? I agree Adam and Eve spiritually died the moment they sinned. They physically died 900 years later. What does this have to do with my view? You are misrepresenting me again because you cannot honestly debate me. You should be ashamed, but you're not.

Nope, Paul is telling us when he learned the law as a young man. He said he would have not KNOWN sin except for the law, he would have not KNOWN lust except the law said, Thou shalt not covet.

No, the law convicted him as a guilty sinner and he died. He had been spiritually alive until he learned the law.

Baloney, it is absolutely relevant, if men are born guilty of Adam's sin as many teach, then Paul could not say they had done no evil.

Again, absolutely relevant, but you ignore God's word.

Dude, you cannot even debate honestly. You put words in my mouth I never said.

Paul clearly said he was ALIVE without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he DIED. He was not born dead in sin, a dead man cannot die.

You need to learn to be honest. If this is the best you can do, please refrain from debating with me. I only debate with folks who have the courage to be honest. You have utterly FAILED this test.

 

And what does the very next post after yours say?

:laugh:

 

Well, people live and die and never hear the gospel, but all men mature and know right from wrong, which makes them accountable. How God deals with men who have not heard the gospel I do not know.

But scripture is clear that God does not hold little children who do not yet understand the difference between right and wrong accountable. I am not saying little children cannot do wrong things, they can, but they are not held responsible. I have already showed Deu 1:39 where God allowed the children of the Jews who sinned in the wilderness to enter the Promised Land. Why? Because they had no KNOWLEDGE between good and evil in that day. This is an Old Testament figure of heaven.

Yes, they are sin free if you understand that the word "sinner" is a legal term like the word "felon". Children have the ability to do wrong things, no one denies this, but they are not charged with a crime because they do not understand their actions before God.

We have been born into a sinful world, surrounded by temptations.

No it does not. Children are not accountable until they have knowledge between good and evil. They are not condemned or separated from God.

Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Note that little children have angels who ALWAYS represent them before the Father. They are not separated from God for a single moment.

At some point that only God knows, every child will mature and understand between good and evil. At this point they become accountable.

Jesus NEVER spoke evil of children, in fact, he told his disciples they must be converted and become AS little children to enter heaven. Was Jesus telling his disciples to become sinners to enter heaven? Absurd!

Now, if we must be converted to become as little children to enter heaven, then logically children cannot be sinners, because no thing that defiles can enter heaven (Rev 21:27).

Now think about that a moment and the issue is settled. Even DHK admitted that David's son went to heaven. Therefore that child must have been without sin.

If people knew the scriptures they could honestly teach that all little children who die go to heaven.

They are not sinners, this is why heaven belongs to those like little children.

It's not that gray, Deu 1:39 shows that a child must understand between good and evil to be condemned. In Jonah 4:11 God tells Jonah that he SHOULD spare Nineveh, because there were 120,000 little children there who could not DISCERN between their right hand and left hand, and much cattle. They were innocent like cattle that cannot sin.

Jon 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

Well thanks, but winning a debate is not really important to me, what is important to me is interpreting scripture properly. I don't care what men think, but I want to understand scripture exactly as God intended. I can say this with all my heart.

 

Paul spoke Greek and Hebrew. He didn't use the KJB. I would have though you might have realized that by now. The translation "apart from" is more accurate. There are a number of translations that agree with that:

(ASV) And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died;
(EMTV) For I was alive apart from the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, but I died.
(ESV) I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
(LITV) And I was alive apart from Law once, but the commandment came, and sin came alive, and I died.
(WNT) Once, apart from Law, I was alive, but when the Commandment came, sin sprang into life, and I died;
(YLT) And I was alive apart from law once, and the command having come, the sin revived, and I died;

--The word "without" gives the wrong impression. It gives the impression that there was no law. That is not true. There was law. It was apart from that law that did exist that he was alive.

You are drawing an unnecessary dichotomy. We are accountable for our sins. However we also are sinners. We are sinners by birth, because of Adam's sin (Rom.5:12,19). Small children do have a knowledge when they have done wrong. One of the first words they learn is "no." One of the first concepts they learn is deception. If there was no sin nature there would be no reason for them not to sin, and surely one out of the billions born would grow up without sin. But that hasn't happened, proving your theory wrong.

Another non sequitor.
You pull Scripture out of context. This is not speaking of Mosaic law:
Deuteronomy 1:43 So I spake unto you; and ye would not hear, but rebelled against the commandment of the LORD, and went presumptuously up into the hill.
44 And the Amorites, which dwelt in that mountain, came out against you, and chased you, as bees do, and destroyed you in Seir, even unto Hormah.

"The children" are those that are 20 and under or the generation that were not able to go and fight. They were the generation that "didn't have the vote," or did not make the decisions. It is not that they did not understands. I am sure that many of those in that group 12 and over understood perfectly the decision that their parents were making. I am sure that they heard the words of Joshua and Caleb and saw the fruit of the land. It was not them that made the decisions.
They would wander in the wilderness with their parents also. And after 40 years it would be they, the younger generation, that would enter into the promised land.
Verse 39 does not refer to the Law; it refers to the fact that they were not accountable for the decision that their parents made in their rejection of the advice that Joshua and Caleb gave them. They were not accountable for that.
So why the red herring? This has nothing to do with it.
Deuteronomy 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, (of the decision that their parents were making and the consequences they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

They younger generation had knowledge. They stood apart from that knowledge. They were not accountable. They were not "voting members" per se, as one would have it in our modern society.
Of course the younger generation included teens.
But Young does not include that group in his translation:

(YLT) `And your infants, of whom ye have said, For a prey they are, and your sons who have not known to-day good and evil, they go in thither, and to them I give it, and they possess it;
--He believes he is directly referring to infants and not the entire generation, which in that case--no--they would not have any knowledge of the situation. Still it is the knowledge of the situation in the wilderness which is the context.

He was convicted of his sin. He saw himself as he was. The law condemned him.

Sin sprang alive. He died--saw himself as he was. The rest of the chapter deals with the struggle between his two natures;
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
--He is revived from the sin that caused him to see him as he really was--dead or separated from God.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
--Sin is a transgression of the law. For a child it is the transgression of a parents law; the parent standing in the place of God. The father is the head of the household by the Lord's command. The law cannot save. The law kills for the transgression of the law is sin. Even children know this.

The innate sense of right and wrong is depravity; our sin nature that we have from birth. It doesn't mature. It is always there.

Do you teach him to tell the truth or teach him to lie? Which one?

False.
All know right from wrong because the law is written in their hearts. Even in the jungles of Africa those never having heard the Bible (OT or NT) know the difference between right and wrong. It is innate. Their conscience tells them. God has given every man a conscience. They excuse themselves and accuse others of their wrong doings? Why? They have the law of God written in their hearts.

You make the same mistake as others.
You think alive and dead have opposite meanings.
Dead means separated from God. Separation is not the opposite of alive.
Paul said he was separated from God APART from the law. There existed a law before Paul was saved. He was religious thinking he was doing God's will, alive, and tells us that he was "blameless."

In the day that you shall eat thereof thou shalt surely die.
They ate and they died. How did a dead man talk with God, from that time until the 900 years after that you speak of? Please explain.

What does it mean "have not known"? You again have a wrong definition?
When were you saved? At would age? Did you know what lust and covetousness (and murder and stealing) were before the day that you were saved? Please answer truthfully.

The depraved mind knows that they are breaking the law. But they don't care. Paul knew what he was doing. He didn't care about the moral value of life in his persecution of Christians. He, in his mind and warped sense of values, was doing it for God.
Someone close to me doesn't see anything wrong with "common law" marriages. To me it is a continual state of fornication. Until they come to their senses and marry they are living in sin. If they come to Christ the law will come alive and show them who they really are before God. Their sin before God will spring alive before them, and they will see themselves as spiritually dead or separated before God--the very reason they need to get saved.

The law is our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. It shows us how guilty we are. Remember that Paul knew the law from childhood. He had been taught it by his parents and in the synagogues.

 

Again, I am completely satisfied with the KJB here.

Perhaps it gave YOU that impression, but I happen to know that the law was given around 1500 years before Paul was born, so I was not given that impression, and I doubt many other Christians would get that impression either.

That we are sinners by birth is the question. Little children do not understand their responsibility before God. Simply telling a little child NO does not make him worthy of being punished forever in hell. Your view is ridiculous, even superstitious.

And this view that person must have a sin nature to sin is also ridiculous and easy to refute from scripture. Satan was created perfect, yet he was able to sin, the fallen angels were "very good" (Gen 1:31), yet they were able to sin, and Adam and Eve were "very good" (Gen 1:31), yet they were able to sin. This PROVES a sin nature is not required to sin. Therefore, the fact that all children will eventually sin does not prove they were born with a sin nature.

It is absolutely relevant, it shows God does not hold a child responsible for sin until they are mature enough to understand between good and evil.

I love the way you simply disregard scripture that refutes your view. :laugh:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

You simply don't believe God's words. God said he would allow the children to go in and possess the Promised Land because they had no knowledge between good and evil in the day that their parents sinned. You can write a novel to attempt to explain this away, and that is all it is, a vain attempt to explain away the word of God.

 

Absolutely your prerogative, but I would point out, the word the KJV translates "without" and the NASB and others translate "apart from" is choris and means "separate from," not strictly "without," though in some contexts, that would be accurate. This is not one of them.

 

The law was given by Moses around 1500 years before Paul was born, so no thinking person would believe the word "without" in Romans 7:9 means the law did not exist.

In context, Paul had just explained that he would have not known sin but for the law, he would have not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. So Paul is clearly speaking of learning the law as a young Jewish man as all young Jewish persons do.

So, when Paul says he was alive "without" the law ONCE, he is speaking of that time before he learned the law, he could not possibly have been speaking of the time before the law was given by Moses.

You are PROVING my point, not refuting it.

 

And Paul's words in Romans 7:7 absolutely refutes DHK's ridiculous view that newborn babies are born knowing right from wrong.

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.