Concerning angels:
Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? (Hebrews 1:14)
-
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!
Infants born with sin nature
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? (Hebrews 1:14)
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: No one blames sin strictly on a child's environment or anyone else's environment. Common sense would tell you that environment has a great impact upon every one, especially children. Your charges of humanism get old DHK, besides being far from the truth. Many things play upon the will of individuals in the process of sin including but not limited to one's environment. The influences of others upon around us have a great influence upon us. What reasonable man would deny that fact? Who would deny that children are easily influenced by their environment and the actions of those around them?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: As a matter of fact, "all" are not ministering spirits to believers. Some angels are fallen angels, followers of Satan himself. A shining example of Scripture written in common parlance by the way.
Gladly:
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? (Matthew 18:1)
--The topic: Who is the greatest in the kingdom?
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, (Matthew 18:2)
--A child is used as an illustration, an object lesson.
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. (Matthew 18:3)
--The child itself is not converted. The child has faith. His faith in his parents, and at this moment in Christ who holds him. He is a trusting child. The topic here is trust, faith, without which you cannot please God. Without faith in Christ you cannot enter into His Kingdom. That is the illustration.
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:4)
--The child in humility and faith came to Jesus. Servanthood and humility are the key to greatness in the kingdom. Notice the simile--"as this little child." He is not talking about children.
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. (Matthew 18:5)
--This is a metaphor. The child is now the believer.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6)
--This is also a metaphor, but better defined. Notice the children, "which believe in me". It is evident here that the children are believers in Christ. They have believed in Christ. Thus in verse 5 if we receive a believer in Christ's name, we also are receiving Christ. That doesn't apply to an actual "child." It applies only to believers.
But to those who offend believers (cause to stumble), it would be better for him to be dead. Christ is speaking of the severity of judgment that will come on those who cause believers, especially new believers to stumble, to fall, etc. Judgement will fall on those that persecute Christians. Perhaps not in this day, but that day will come.
His words only become stronger:
Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! (Matthew 18:7)
He is speaking against those who cause Christians to stumble and fall.
Psa 58:3 is obvious exaggeration, no child has ever been born with the ability to speak or the mental faculties to tell a lie. A newborn does not even understand what a lie is. This whole passage is figurative, in vs. 4 he says they are poisonous like a serpent. Do you take that literally? In vs. 6 David asks God to break their teeth. Do newborns have teeth? And not just teeth, he calls them "great teeth of the young lions". Do you take this literally? Then in vs. 8 David asks that God melt them like a snail. Is this literal? And do all these verses apply to all children everywhere? Is David asking God to break all children's teeth and melt them like a snail?
Of all the supposed proof-texts for OS, this is the most ridiculous. It is obvious hyperbole.
DHK would, even though his proof-texts are the same old tired proof-texts shown by every Calvinist (yes, I know you are not a Calvinist), showing he has been influenced by others. I guess he believes persons are born Mormons, or JWs, or any other false doctrine, influence from others has no effect at all on people.
When you can't argue the facts, simply call your opponent names.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK, now I feel bad. I desired you to address Psalms 58 and show us how that Psalm supports original sin. I should have been more specific. I am especially interested in the overall context of that chapter.
Oh, it's easy. Newborns are born with the ability to speak and tell lies. They are poisonous like snakes, and have giant teeth like lions.
But there is no reason to be afraid of them, if they bother you just sprinkle some salt on them and they will melt like a snail.
What is the design for using parables? Is it not to take something true to your experience in order to use it to reinforce a truth?
What is the design of a metaphor? Is it not to take some aspect of something that is literal and actual and apply it as a truthful description of something else?
What is the design of a symbol? Is not the value of a symbol the rightful portraying of a literal truth? If you distort the symbol do you not also distort the truth it was designed to symbolize???
Now, with these common sense uses of parables, metaphors and symbols in mind let us look at Psalm 58:
2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.
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;
Notice the literal truth is then followed by a metphorical reaffirmation of the same truth.
"yea, in heart ye work wickedness" - Literal truth
"ye weigh the violence of your hands" - metaphorical reaffimation of the evil they are working in their heats.
"The wicked are estranged from the womb" - literal truth - The term "enstranged" is always used to convey a NEGATIVE idea in Scripture whenever it is used of one person in regard to another person and NEVER a positive idea. It does not simply mean physical separation but a separation involving moral negatives.
Proof is the context!
1. They are called "wicked" which is morally abrasive person
2. They are described in morally abusive terms
a. "lies" - moral negatives
b. "serpent" is never used of people as a compliment but a metaphor for immorality
c. "poison" is never used of people as a compliment but a metaphor of immorality.
So, the literal wicked are literally separated from the womb as literally immoral beings by nature.
The language that follows metaphorically conveys immoral characteristics to support the literal statements.
If I am not correct on the moral character value of such terms then please enlighten us to how any of these terms convey anything but immoral characteristics of the wicked at birth?
Last edited by a moderator:
You didn't read carefully the post did you. The fact that HP and I came very close to agreeing on the meaning of the verse shows you did not understand what was said.
Therefore I am to conclude that your method of interpretation is thus:
Whenever the passage is written poetically it cannot be interpreted, it has no value as far as truth is concerned. It is void of all truth. Therefore it is trash. Throw it out. Read the Koran instead. What value is there in simple poetry??
Your above remarks are a denial of Scripture:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)
What is the design for using parables? Is it not to take something true to your experience in order to use it to reinforce a truth?
What is the design of a metaphor? Is it not to take some aspect of something that is literal and actual and apply it as a truthful description of something else?
What is the design of a symbol? Is not the value of a symbol the rightful portraying of a literal truth? If you distort the symbol do you not also distort the truth it was designed to symbolize???
Now, with these common sense uses of parables, metaphors and symbols in mind let us look at Psalm 58:
2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.
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;
Notice the literal truth is then followed by a metphorical reaffirmation of the same truth.
"yea, in heart ye work wickedness" - Literal truth
"ye weigh the violence of your hands" - metaphorical reaffimation of the evil they are working in their heats.
"The wicked are estranged from the womb" - literal truth - The term "enstranged" is always used to convey a NEGATIVE idea in Scripture whenever it is used of one person in regard to another person and NEVER a positive idea. It does not simply mean physical separation but a separation involving moral negatives.
Proof is the context!
1. They are called "wicked" which is morally abrasive person
2. They are described in morally abusive terms
a. "lies" - moral negatives
b. "serpent" is never used of people as a compliment but a metaphor for immorality
c. "poison" is never used of people as a compliment but a metaphor of immorality.
So, if this language does not convey immoral qualities of the wicked from birth what do they imply?
The language that follows metaphorically conveys immoral characteristics to support the literal statements.
If I am not correct on the moral character value of such terms then please enlighten us to how any of these terms convey anything but immoral characteristics of the wicked from birth?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Sadly we were miles apart DHK. David says those things specifically speaking of a group of individuals he calls 'fools.' He is not making any universal statement in support of any notion even closely related to OS, but rather is commenting in figurative language, 'as if though' that might appear to be true of the "FOOLS" spoken of. No one else but the 'workers of iniquity' and the 'fools' have these corrupted and wicked traits according to this Psalm. David sets himself and 'his people' at antipodes with the wickedness exhibited by those others and spoken of in such reprehensible terms.
Psalms 53:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good." Who said in his heart? The fool.
Psa 53:4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread:
Who have no knowledge and eat up his people? The ''workers of iniquity.'
Notice that he is pitting 'his people' clearly in a distinct manner separated from 'the fools and workers of iniquity' that are the focus of this Psalm.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: You fail to realize the whole thrust of this passage.
If one would take the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one would come to the plain truth that this Psalm was NOT written in any way to support some notion of original sin or inherited depravity, not only because of the context but the fact that the Jews did not hold to inherited depravity in the least. There was no place in their theology for such a notion. Original sin was simply foreign to them.
The context of the Psalm clearly indicates TWO groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses 'the wicked' and speaks clearly to their final destruction. David cries out to God to let “every one of them pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘all’ of them and wash His feet in their blood. Is DHK holding to the belief that God is going to wash His feet in the blood of innocent babies, millions of which are the product of the abortionist’s knife? God help us!
Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto 'the righteous.' He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.
One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting the wicked with the righteous. He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.
In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the wicked appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, and that as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin.
One Psalm differs from another.
Read my response to you. Remember the Psalm in question is Psalm 58 not 53. Psalm 58:3 specifically:
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Psalms 58:3)
I'll quote your words for you:
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK, Psalms 14, 53, an 58 are indeed alike in this basis way. They all address two distinct classes of people, the wicked and the righteous. David is pitting the wicked against the righteous and is not in any manner establishing all universally in the camp of the wicked. Look again at Psalm 58.
If one would take the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one would come to the plain truth that this Psalm was NOT written in any way to support some notion of original sin or inherited depravity, not only because of the context but the fact that the Jews did not hold to inherited depravity in the least. There was no place in their theology for such a notion. Original sin was simply foreign to them.
The context of the Psalm clearly indicates two groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses the 'wicked' spoken of here as 'the sons of men.' and speaks clearly to their final destruction. David cries out to God to let “every one of 'them' pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘all’ of them and wash His feet in their blood. Is DHK holding to the belief that God is going to wash His feet in the blood of innocent babies, millions of which are the product of the abortionist’s knife? God help us!
Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto the righteous. He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.
One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting the wicked with the righteous. He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.
In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the wicked appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, and that as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin would indicate.
If one would take the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one would come to the plain truth that this Psalm was NOT written in any way to support some notion of original sin or inherited depravity, not only because of the context but the fact that the Jews did not hold to inherited depravity in the least. There was no place in their theology for such a notion. Original sin was simply foreign to them.
The context of the Psalm clearly indicates two groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses the 'wicked' spoken of here as 'the sons of men.' and speaks clearly to their final destruction. David cries out to God to let “every one of 'them' pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘all’ of them and wash His feet in their blood. Is DHK holding to the belief that God is going to wash His feet in the blood of innocent babies, millions of which are the product of the abortionist’s knife? God help us!
Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto the righteous. He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.
One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting the wicked with the righteous. He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.
In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the wicked appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, and that as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin would indicate.
I have never suggested that the whole psalm was written with that one focus in mind. However, it is certainly included as one aspect of truth in regard to the whole psalm.
There are many truths in God's Word that are foreign to most Jews. For example, the Trinity was foreign to them but still taught in the Old Testament in many ways. So this argument is moot.
He is considering the wicked from birth to final judgement as you cannot deny his birth is explicitly mentioned. So the whole history of the wicked is in view.
I personally have never witnessed any infant that grew up who never sinned willfully have you?? If as you and jerry teach that infants come from the womb already spiritual born again by nature and thus righteous by nature and thus doing righteousness, then we should have many examples of human beings that chose never to willfully sin just like Jesus because Jesus was made just like they were in every detail, correct??
Hence, the Bible should say "Almost all have sinned" and "There is almost none righteous, just many."
If infants come with a spiritual nature like God's then they should manifest the fruits of the spirit from the earliest expression from the womb until they understand what is willful sin - shouldn't they because the scriptures demands that anyone born of the Spirit doeth righteousness or they are not born of God.
If that is so, then may I ask why born again infants should express anything other than the fruits of the Spirit????? Since they have no sin nature then they should from birth all the time up to the age of accountability be NORMALLY and NATURALLY expressing love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance as these things are evidences of new birth as new birth establishes TRUE HOLINESS AND RIGHTOUSNESS according to the nature of the inward man (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Tit. 3:5).
Why is it that every single child born into the world does not naturally express this kind of fruit but NATURALLY expresses the fruit of the flesh ???
Trying to reason with your unreasonable intepretation.