Original Sin

[russell55]

Depends on where you want to put the orginal sin, the child or Adam.

Original sin has to do the state in which the child was born. First of all, were they, as you say, born with the penalty for Adam's sin passed onto them? And secondly, were they born with an inclination toward sin rather than righteousness? (In other words, even though they can't actually commit sin yet, is their heart inclined that way so that when they can sin, they will.)

There is a difference though. Adam also was pronounced to die the second death and that is where I think the child is free from until it comes to know vanity.

Don't they need the second birth, like Jesus said in John 3?

“I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all be born from above.’'

Aren't they included in the word person here? How can they enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of both water and the spirit? The are born of the flesh, but they haven't yet been born of the spirit, have they? Don't they need that?

 

[Brother Bob]

Original sin has to do the state in which the child was born. First of all, were they, as you say, born with the penalty for Adam's sin passed onto them? And secondly, were they born with an inclination toward sin rather than righteousness? (In other words, even though they can't actually commit sin yet, is their heart inclined that way so that when they can sin, they will.)

They were indeed born with the penalty of Adam and begin to die the day they are born.
Are they inclinded to sin? They were made subject to vanity and though good and evil are put before them because of the weakness of the flesh they have all sinned and come short of the Glory of God. Scripture says to choose to do good and cease to do evil, so according to scripture man chose evil.

Don't they need the second birth, like Jesus said in John 3?

this is what I meant when I said they needed the Grace of God. For they were born to die and not live eternal therefore are in need of the Grace of God which would include the water and Spirit. Though they don't have the second death pronounced upon them because they have not sinned, they can't go to Heaven without The Grace of God. They just would never live again if not for the Grace of God and neither would they face the second death either for they never sinned.

How do you see this? I have alway felt that babies without sin just go to Heaven by God's Grace which would have to include His Spirit.

Aren't they included in the word person here? How can they enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of both water and the spirit? The are born of the flesh, but they haven't yet been born of the spirit, have they? Don't they need that?

same as above.

Adam was born without sin and therefore no death so He was not in need of the water and the Spirit until He disobeyed God. He not only brought the natural death but God pronounced the second death upon him also and if we sin God pronounces the second death upon us. I believe we bring the second death upon our ownselves.

It certainly is a great big question and I can see where it would lead to different answers.

 

[skypair]

Cancelled my misformatted earlier post.

 

[skypair]

You have contradicted the Scripture in this statement. You say “Each person died spiritually for his own sin.” However, Romans 5 says sin is not counted where there is no law. Your statement requires there to have been a law to break—there was none. People still did evil, as evidenced in God’s statements against man— “

Well, there obviously is a disconnect between what we each think Rom 5 says. We'll work that out momentarily.

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

(Genesis 6:5 ESV)—but that verse is a discussion for another time. Not to mention, Romans 5:18 says, “one trespass led to condemnation for all men” .

Yes, one trespass led all the be condemned to PHYSIACL death, right?

You are constructing a false dichotomy in your position. The fact is Scripture, nowhere suggests two falls or two types of “original sin.”

One sin kills one man in soul immediately -- in spirit progressively -- in body eventually. It does NOT lead to all 3 condemnations of the rest of mankind.

So, are you saying Noah and his children/children-in-law were perfect?

Here's the point I would make on that issue --- the "conscience" issue was one husband, one wife, Gen 2:24. But they took as many as they desired -- except Noah and his children. This answers, I hope, your question with "conscience" as well.

If the dead between Adam and Moses had no sin counted against them (due to the absence of law), and as we all know the wages of sin is death, why would they have died?

That's just it -- no sin BUT the knowling trespass of God's command, right? Is that not condemned also?

In God’s way of doing things, we are all counted as legally guilty for Adam’s sin. If we die, which we do, it is because of his sin. Our own sin only serves to condemn us further—which makes God’s grace more amazing, I might add.

No, that's your interpretation of what the Bible says. It ain't necessarily so.

Unfortunately, your entire presupposition on this issue is based on something other than Scripture. Your position seeks to pacify some unfortunate and dark facts about the human condition. It would be much nicer and easier if your position were scriptural—I would actually prefer your dualistic position, if it were supported by anything in Scripture.

Don't get nasty. As you can see, I am using scripture. That you don't agree with it leaves you with the conundrom of saying that there is a different "dispensation" for infants. Find how that works, not just that it works, in scripture, please.

One of the things about the Scripture is it tells us things about ourselves and humanity in general that we do not like. For instance: I am a very reluctant Calvinist. I don’t like that Paul teaches what we call Calvinism—An all-pervasive depravity, Unconditional election, Particular atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints.

You shouldn't be a Calvinist at all! Scripture does NOT confirm Calvinism. What other questions do you not find answers for in Calvinism??

It is not up to me, or any of us, to change the point the authors were making on behalf of The Author Himself, no matter how distasteful they may be to our delicate, Americanized sensibilities.

I don't think you are discerning my motivation or my knowledge of the subject correctly, sir. Can we just talk about the issues, please?

blessings back at ya!

skypair

 

[skypair]

To All:

Let me say clearly that I understand the issue of the death of babies and the death of the mentally incompetent is a difficult issue. Let me also say that we tend to cloud the issue with our own baggage and desires.

Speak for yourself regarding "clouds." I have my belief on the authority of the scriptures.

If someone in my church came to me with the question related to the salvation of infants or the mentally incompetent I would not invent things; I would point them to the Scripture.

Which you then say is "deafeningly silent." So basically you haul out your "baggage and desires?"

2 Samuel 12:22-23 shows a heartbreaking scene. David’s child, with Bathsheba—as a result of their sin, has just died. The Scripture says, “22 He [David] said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23 But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

So you grant that the answer in NOT here -- and that you have to fabricate a theology to accomodate this verse, right?

We should not be focusing on explaining what Scripture is mostly silent about. Rather, we should be focusing on God, His perfect goodness, and His perfect justice. We should tell people that God will always do right.

So, rather than inventing a ridiculous idea of an “Age of Accountability” or trying to explain how it might be possible for infants or the mentally incompetent to be saved, we should be saying this: Since God is totally righteous and perfect, we trust Him to make the correct decision in all circumstances. To put it another way, we may not know for sure what happens to infants and the mentally incompetent when they die, but we do know the One who holds their eternal destiny in His hands and we know that in every decision He makes, He makes the right one.

But suppose you could really tell them the truth from scripture. Suppose that children don't inherit the sins of their fathers (Ezek 18:20 trusting that this no sin can be inherited) and so are not guilty of anything. Suppose that means that God is fair and righteous to not condemn them for sin they didn't commit. That the only thing attributable to Adam was their PHYSICAL death.

Archangel, start giving this possibility more thought than you have so far. So far you are trusting that Calvin was right. Start thinking in terms of Calvin having written this 2 years after becoming a Christian. Start thinking that maybe his early paradigm was flawed and shown to be in error and that there are much more learned and spiritual expositors of scripture in our day than in his.

I know that you are overlooking a lot of flaws just to admit that you are a "reluctant" Calvinist. You should start questioning much of what you now believe of Calvinism, sir (unless, of course, it is too late to switch churches vocationally).


skypair

 

[skypair]

In other words, the kindom of heaven belongs to those who are like these children in some way. That's what the word such means. He's making a point about the faith (or receptiveness) that is necessary to belong to the kingdom. This becomes even clearer in Mark's account, where Mark includes the next words of Jesus

This is teaching us something about the nature of saving faith, not the natural condition, as it relates to sin, of children.

Russell, those are two different perspectives. The Mt 19 passage speaks of having the INNOCENCE of a child being as the INNOCENCE of those who are in heaven.

Of course, we need to be receptive as children, too. But the 2 passages are not one explaining the other. They give 2 perspectives of the issue of children.

Thanks for jumping in though

skypair

 

[skypair]

...

Perhaps if Calvinists and freewillers don't accept that children are innocent, then we CAN agree that 1) Christ died for ALL sin and 2) they have NEVER committed the unpardonable sin -- rejection of the Holy Spirit/God/Christ.

Does THAT please everyone? Cause I can see either or both, actually. Infants are "double-indemnified!" :laugh:

My "follow-on," for your consideration (Russell and bro. bob particularly), would be that they are resurrected postrib to see Jesus AND to have knowledge of good and evil and will be called upon to choose just as we have. Hence, they actually come "through Christ" Who alone is the Way, right?

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Russell, those are two different perspectives. The Mt 19 passage speaks of having the INNOCENCE of a child being as the INNOCENCE of those who are in heaven.

If they are innocent then the second death has not been pronounced upon them and as David of Old, when his child died he said I can go to where he is, which I take to be with the Lord.

Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ he conquered over death hell and the grave. Just because the child is not condemned to hell it is condemned to grave, death and still takes the blood to conquer over death and the grave, to overcome the sin of Adam.

No, I believe the child is already covered by the blood. God so loved the "world", that He gave His only begotten Son.

 

[skypair]

If they are innocent then the second death has not been pronounced upon them and as David of Old, when his child died he said I can go to where he is, which I take to be with the Lord.

I'm not sure that connotation of "second death" is right, Bob. Second death occurs after one is resurrected to a phyical body again at the GWT. Once that judgment is complete, the person dies again phyically forever.

If an infant is resurrected to earth in the MK to choose Christ (along with the OT saints), if he/she doesn't receive Christ, he/she will (hmmm) die and appear at the GWT and die the third death (??). Maybe there is a flaw in my theology? Or maybe 3rd death is just never mentioned. Hmm. Got any suggestions? :saint:

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

The second death occurs at the GWT but the pronouncement of that second death upon someone is in this life and if they repent they can escape it but if they don't repent they will stand there along with the rest. If you die in your sins where the Lord is you cannot come. That is now!

If you start using the dead in sin as one of the "deaths" then you would have to use the "dead to sin" also so we could come up with at least 4 deaths using that theory. He told us what the second death is and its the ones that he said in this life I judge you not but the words I speak will judge you in the last day.