"In sin my mother conceived me"

[Frenchy]

Helen quote

No child who is conceived in the holy marriage bed is conceived 'in sin.' In fact, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that if even one of the marriage partners is a believer, then the child is holy and not unclean.

Honestly where do you come up with this stuff?

David is not refering to his mother having an affair, it is refering to ALL our conditions at conception. ALL scripture is for us even today. to say this scripture verse is only saying David mother was sinnful in having an affair takes away for the true meaning that we are all born IN SIN!

Your quote above is also misleading and wrong. what the verse is again really refering to is that a child is NOT HOLY just because one of it's parents is a believer, it is saying that SINCE one of the parents or both are believers that child has a BETTER chance of becomming a believer also. he is SANTIFIED (not sinnless or holy and not even forgiven) and PROTECTED and BLESSED by God and his word. I am really amazed at some of the theology i am seeing on a "baptist" board.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

The word 'Holy' in 1 Cor. 7:14 is the Greek word 'hagios' here is its definition.

agioV hagios hag'-ee-os

from hagos (an awful thing) (compare 53, 2282); sacred (physically, pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially, consecrated):--(most) holy (one, thing), saint.

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by Frenchy:
Helen quote </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No child who is conceived in the holy marriage bed is conceived 'in sin.' In fact, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that if even one of the marriage partners is a believer, then the child is holy and not unclean.

Honestly where do you come up with this stuff?

David is not refering to his mother having an affair, it is refering to ALL our conditions at conception. ALL scripture is for us even today. to say this scripture verse is only saying David mother was sinnful in having an affair takes away for the true meaning that we are all born IN SIN!

Your quote above is also misleading and wrong. what the verse is again really refering to is that a child is NOT HOLY just because one of it's parents is a believer, it is saying that SINCE one of the parents or both are believers that child has a BETTER chance of becomming a believer also. he is SANTIFIED (not sinnless or holy and not even forgiven) and PROTECTED and BLESSED by God and his word. I am really amazed at some of the theology i am seeing on a "baptist" board. </font>[/QUOTE]What kind of logic is that? Are we all born of virgins? Are we all named Lemuel? Are there she-bears out there eating all the kids who tease bald people?

There are plenty of scriptures with personal references that don't apply to all people.

 

[HankD]

The Alexandrian LXX was translated by Jewish scholars several hundred years before Christ.

Which, IMO, makes it more suspect than acceptable seeing there was not the final revelation of God in written form or the NT gifts and infilling of the Holy Spirit.

Here is a more generic passage concerning the state of sin we are born into:

Psalm 58
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;

I didn't teach ANY of my children to lie or fight or be selfish. They did so on their own before they went to school.

While a couple of them had a meek and mild disposition they all had an untaught proclivity to sin.

HankD

 

[Helen]

Hank, I totally agree with you regarding children having a proclivity to sin. I have often used that example with New Agers who claim we are all really good inside!

The proclivity to sin is mentioned by God in Genesis 8:21, however it is mentioned in regard to 'from their youth', which I found interesting.

At any rate, the Alexandrian LXX is the only translation I am aware of which agrees with the New Testament quotes -- in other words, it or a very similar translation from the Paleo Hebrew was the Scripture used and known by Christ and the people of His time.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Gina L:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:


No child who is conceived in the holy marriage bed is conceived 'in sin.' In fact, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that if even one of the marriage partners is a believer, then the child is holy and not unclean.

Is that implying that a child born to two unsaved parents is unholy? That does go with the concept that children born to believers are secure, which I've heard taught.

Anyhow, it seems as if this verse takes the air out of the idea that all children are born without guilt, if they are considered unholy if neither of their parents are born.

1 Cor. 7:14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

There has to be an explanation. </font>[/QUOTE]God commanded Israel to only marry within the Jewish race/Religion, so an unbelieving "husband/Wife" would be like marrying outside the race/Religion.

1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

I think Paul is say that a believer married to an unbeliever, does not make the children "Bastards" in the sense of an
unmarried couple.

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Under the law, a woman was bound to her husband as long as he lived.

Mr 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Ro 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.


But note what Paul, not God, said about this marriage.

1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:

An "unbeliever" would be "DEAD" (Spiritually) in the sight of God.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Helen:
The Alexandrian LXX was translated by Jewish scholars several hundred years before Christ. They considered Psalm 51 to be 'conceived' and the genealogy indicated that David was the product of an incestuous relationship between his father and his oldest brother's daughter.

No child who is conceived in the holy marriage bed is conceived 'in sin.' In fact, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that if even one of the marriage partners is a believer, then the child is holy and not unclean.

This is said by me simply to indicate that a child can be considered holy. David said he was conceived in sin -- that means, very bluntly, that he was the result of sex outside of marriage. This is the way the ancient Jews saw his lineage and the meaning of this passage and I'm not sure we are in any position to dispute it with our 'current' and revised understandings.

So my point is, again, that this passage is not a good one to use for Calvinists in trying to substantiate their theology.

Honestly, when you have to choose between the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the LXX, you choose the Hebrew.

The word translated "conceive" in the LXX is soonlambano. This word literally means "to take with." Do you see how this has more of a picture of birth than conception? It is often used of conception, but also generally means to take.

So, again, I say that because of the original Hebrew and because of the general meaning of the Greek in the LXX, this verse is perfectly acceptable for pointing to children being born with a sin nature.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
CalviBaptist

You don't understand the above, yet certain Calvin is right??????


That's as likely as a "first grader" teaching a "Physic's major" calculus to obtain his PHD.

In "Redneck" terms, you don't know what you're talking about.

No, I don't know what you're talking about. Are you suggesting that I am like a first grader and you are like a physics major? It sounds like you are a little full of yourself.

You honestly need to assume a lot less about your theological acumen and about what others do and do not know.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Helen:
The proclivity to sin is mentioned by God in Genesis 8:21, however it is mentioned in regard to 'from their youth', which I found interesting.

The Hebrew word used for "youth" in Genesis 8:21 is na'ar, which has a wide range of meanings as far as children is concerned.

In fact, it is a derivative of the same word that is used in 2 Samuel 12:16, where David is praying for the life of his infant. Curious, since this is the passage we have been debating about.

So, here is one more verse that supports that children are born with sin natures. Thanks for bringing it up Helen!

 

[HankD]

OK Helen, I suppose there could be a debate concerning where this leaning toward sin comes from and how it is acquired/transmitted.

My assumption is that human beings die even as children because they are sinners.

For the moment I blame Adam.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

However, children up to whatever age ??? are innocent of blame until we put our stamp of approval with understanding upon it as evil, then we bear the guilt. Nevertheless they bear the penalty of sin (death) no matter what the age.

Presumably, if children were not sinners by nature they would not/could not die until they sinned (as per Adam/Eve).

But because children are mortal at any age (even in the womb), they are in the state of sin from conception (as per David).

This is the law of sin and death.

HankD

 

[Helen]

I have never ever denied that we are all born with sin natures (except Christ). We are. That is not the debate here.

Let me use some examples here before we go further.

If a mother has active syphilis, her child is born blind. The child is no way guilty of the mother's sin but still affected by it from birth.

If a father is on drugs when conception happens, the child may be affected from the moment of conception, but that child is not guilty in the slightest of what his father did. Yet he will suffer for it the rest of his life. I have a child like that.

Being born affected by something does not make one guilty of it. We are all affected by sin natures and, given enough time in our lives, those sin natures inevitably lead to our individual spiritual deaths (and I would except the profoundly retarded here, or those otherwise incapable of comprehension of the law for whatever reason).

Children are born sick with sin, but they are not sinners at birth for there is no sin they have yet committed! One cannot be held guilty of something one has not done.

When Paul says that all men have sinned, he is right. Every sentient adult has sinned. But no newborn has, and that age may be extended a bit as well, for Paul says very clearly in Romans 7 that he was alive until the law was known to him. Unless you are going to argue reincarnation, he is talking about spiritually. He is using himself as an example, and that example is then applicable to all people. It is Bible that must explain Bible and we cannot ignore this explanation of Paul's.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Helen:
Children are born sick with sin, but they are not sinners at birth for there is no sin they have yet committed! One cannot be held guilty of something one has not done.

We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. There is a big difference.

 

[Calvibaptist]

If one has a sin nature, they are dead in their tresspasses and sins.

Ephesians 2:1-3 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

If someone is "by nature children of wrath," and they die, they will go to hell. Jesus told Nicodemus, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

You either have to believe that God can and does regenerate infants (apart from faith), which would support the Calvinist viewpoint, or you have to believe that Jesus and Paul were liars.

You can't believe in a system that is so dependant on a person's free-will option to believe and then say that certain ones don't have to meet those requirements.

 

[Frenchy]

GINA...2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
If one has a sin nature, they are dead in their tresspasses and sins.

Ephesians 2:1-3 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience.

Do babies "walk" (live) according to the "prince of the air", and is his
spirit "Working" disobedience to God in Babies??

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, "IT" (soul) shall die.

The flesh die regardless.

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by Frenchy:
GINA...2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Why are you posting, when there's an ark to be built?

 

[HankD]

Children are born sick with sin, but they are not sinners at birth for there is no sin they have yet committed! One cannot be held guilty of something one has not done.

I think we are pretty close on this one Helen.

But an apple tree is an apple tree even if it has not yet born fruit.

The full condemnation of sin comes with the individual's understanding of the evil of the fruit of sin.

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.


HankD

 

[Me4Him]

God gave Adam/Eve the "LAW" of not eating of the tree, "Don't transgress the law or you'll die.

God gave us the "law", "Don't transgress the law or you'll die".

Question, Did Adam/Eve become sinners "BEFORE" they transgressed the law or "AFTERWARDS"???

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

"If" God had not gave a warning to Adam/Eve, would it still have been a sin???

Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Why did God "impute sin" to a world of "evil" and destroy it with a flood, "BEFORE" the law was given???

And what was the significants of their eyes being "open" to "know good/evil", yet if they were "blind", they would have "no sin"???

Ge 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them,

If ye were blind, ye should have no sin:

but now ye say,

We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

 

[Helen]

Um, I don't understand your point in regard to this thread. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be nasty, but where are you going with that, Me4Him?

By the way 'knowing good and evil' means the ability to judge. Man 'knowing good and evil' means man is taking on himself the Godly perogative of judgment and deciding what is best for himself. That has not been given to us to do, although we certainly try to usurp it every chance we get!

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Helen:
Um, I don't understand your point in regard to this thread. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be nasty, but where are you going with that, Me4Him?

Some attempt to "nail" God down on either this/that side of an issue, they don't know the scriptures well enough to realize the Bible is full of "Seemingly" Contradictions which can't be explained with a one sided doctrine.

Ex:
It's appointed to man to die once, but all don't die.

(I'll wait for their answer then explain)

By the way 'knowing good and evil' means the ability to judge. Man 'knowing good and evil' means man is taking on himself the Godly perogative of judgment and deciding what is best for himself. That has not been given to us to do, although we certainly try to usurp it every chance we get!

Exactly, but not according to calvin, the option to "quench the spirit" is not an option with God's "EFFECTUAL CALLING".


How can a baby know the law, or quench the spirit, there are "exceptions" or things that "SEEM" to contradict each other in the scriptures and "Rightly dividing", the word is the only way to correctly understand what is being said/taught.

The "PATH" is "Straight/Narrow", and you can step off on "either side" but, either side, you're still "OFF" the path.