Psalm 58:3 (and babies)

Hi Letreia. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your thoughts on Romans 7 but I respectfully do not agree with them. I feel that Paul is definitely speaking of himself as an "entire" person including his "regenerate" self. He is claiming to be a sinner in the present tense AFTER he was saved (1 Tim. 1: 15). Men SIN before they are saved and they SIN after they are saved.

Being “wicked” and “committing sin” are not the same. Thank you again for your thoughts Latreia.

latterrain77

[ October 26, 2002, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

Can anyone say "Pelagianism?"

 

BaptistVine writes:
We are all sinners from our birth. Yes. But ths is referring to our natures is it not?

Actually, if you see my previous post (about 5 posts back or so) you will see that the word "sinner" referred to in Romans 5:19 is in the aorist tense. The other reference verses I present render your distinction erroneous.

 

Hi rlvaughn. My apologies if my last post was confusing to you. In brief, babies (as a “group”) are NOT the subject of Psalm 58: 3. The “wicked” (i.e. unsaved) as a group are the subject of Psalm 58: 3. That is why the verse says "the wicked" are estranged - it does not say "babies" are estranged.

Babies are a BLESSING from the LORD (Psalm 127: 3-5). What the Bible plainly calls a “blessing” can hardly be viewed as “wicked.” So, the "wicked" of Psalm 58: 3 cannot be speaking of babies as a group (since babies are a blessing). Thank you again rlvaughn. I appreciate your thoughts on this subject.

latterrain77

[ October 27, 2002, 06:17 AM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

There are 5 reasons that one would think Romans 7 is speaking of the regenerate:

1) The use of ego. Paul is speaking in the present tense indicating present experience.

2) It si the regenerat alone who can say they "delight in God's law" and serve it and seek after God and submit to the law of God.

3) The mind of the ego in Ro 7 serves hte law, unlike elsewhere in Paul.

4) Only the Christian s posesses the "inner person".

5) Paul speaks in Roamns 7 after discussing his salvation. This is simply a chronological prgression.

There are 6 arguments that say that Ro. 7 refers to the unregenerate:

1)The connection betwen the "ego" andthe flesh, arising from 7:5where Paul is definitely speaking of the unregenerate.

2) The ego struggles without the Holy Spirit. Inconceivable for a Christian.

3) The ego is under the power of sin. Again, impossible for a Christian.

4) The ego loses he battle with sin and is a prisoner to the power of sin. Again, imossible for a Christian.

5) Thsi is not just a struggle with sin but a defeat of the individual by sin. Not a Christian.

6) The ego here tries to obey the Mosaic Law, which Paul has already said the believer is released from.

The decisive lements are that the eog si said to be sold under sin, something that every believer is said to be set free from. Similalrly, the idea that a Christian can be imprisoned to the power fo the law, when every Christian is set free from th law of sin and death.

Whatever problems we might have reconciling the view that Ro. 7 speaks fothe unregenerate, they are not so great as those brought about by thinking that Roamsn 7 refers to teh regenerate.

Again, the argument can be made that the Christian struggles with sin CAN be made. Just not from Roamsn 7. This is not a denial that men sin after being savd. It is a denial that you can make that argument from Romans 7.

 

Christians can be defeated by sin and come back into its bondage…

Revelation 2
20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

 

Ever seen a baby stop crying immediately when mother picked him/her up? That is deception or lying, but without malice. Babies can con mom into doing things that please them. Even if this is a sin, the child has not reached the age of accountability and is blameless at the time.

That's how I see it - Jim

 

Hi rlvaughn. Thank you for your comments. Psalm 127: 3-5 say’s that children are a blessing from the LORD. I believe this means ALL children. However, Psalm 58: 3 is NOT speaking about all children but is only referring to the “wicked” (unsaved).

GOD has already saved all whom he intends to save (past, present, future). This was accomplished from before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1: 4, Heb. 4: 3, 1 Peter 1: 20, etc). Babies in the womb are not excluded from this action. All who are to be saved WILL be saved before they die. GOD works it all out for them and us.

I do not have any idea which individuals will be saved (babies or adults) as this is a mystery that belongs exclusively to GOD. Even the Apostles had NO idea which of them were saved (Matt. 26: 20-25). They did not have even the slightest clue about the evil surrounding Judas, their "brother" and fellow disciple (Luke 22:3). Is it your understanding that this question can be determined concerning babies who die?

Adam’s sin nature is imputed to all humans. However, “sin nature” and being “wicked” (unsaved) is not the same thing (as I mentioned in my previous posts). Saved folks sin just as readily as unsaved folks (“sin nature”).

We are not privy to the glorious dynamic that exists between GOD and a baby. However, we do know that GOD himself has intimate knowledge and is directly involved in the development of EVERY baby (Job 31: 15, Ecc. 11: 5). GOD himself provides a unique protection of covering to every baby in the womb and all children are WONDERFULLY made (Psalm 139: 13-14). Doesn’t the Bible teach us that babies are automatically deemed “behaved” and, isn’t a “weaning baby” as saved as David’s soul? (Psalm 131: 2).

Babies are BLESSINGS from GOD and blessings cannot be “wicked” by definition (even if they have a sin nature as described above).

Matt. 18: 10 strongly implies that special attention is granted to any child who dies. Job 10: 19 points to a protective device being afforded to the child in the womb. GOD works all of this out for the baby. Thank you again rlvaughn. I very much appreciate your follow up and comments on this subject.

latterrain77

[ October 28, 2002, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

Jim, sometimes I will be sick and wake up with nightmares (I get them when I run a fever). I will find myself crying with fright, half awake, and my husband will wake up and just let me cuddle for a few moments and then I am fine and go back to sleep again.

Is that sin?

When a baby needs cuddling, how else will he or she ask for it? And when the need is filled, the crying stops. I think we don't know or don't remember that the world can seem a frightening and out-of-control mess to a little one. The only security there is, for sure, is mommy.

I am not speaking of a toddler who has learned that screaming will accomplish certain things, but a baby -- a little one. Sins will come soon enough, but I am honestly stunned by the number of men here who seem to think that a baby crying is a sin. What, you want a written essay of problems to be submitted for consideration??

===========

That aside, there are some things to notice about Romans 7, I think.

Regardless of how you view it, verses 7-11 are describing death due to sin -- spiritual death, or separation from God.

v. 9 "...I died"
v. 10 "the...commandment....brought death."
v. 11 "...sin...put me to death"
v. 13 "...become death to me...produced death in me..."

At this point v. 14 states, "...but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin."

cross reference that to ch. 6, v.6 where Paul, speaking to the redeemed says of them that "For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin."

A person who is a slave to sin is not regenerate by Paul's definition. Therefore in Romans 7:14, Paul is speaking of himself as he was in his unregenerate state, sold as a slave to sin.

It is of this person he says, "For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do."

In other words, this person wants to do something other than what his sin nature is dictating he is doing. I do think this flies in the face of Calvinism.

A further indication of the fact that this person is unregenerate is in the next verse: "And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good."

This person is still under the law.

Then there is verse 17 -- a rather remarkable claim: "As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me."

He has separated HIMSELF, who he is, from the sin he is a slave to. This is not at all what Reformed theology teaches.

Verse 18 adds a little fuel to this fire: "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out."

This person obviously has a will apart from his sin nature!

More indication this is an unregenerate person? Next verse: "For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do -- this I keep on doing."

Now we know that the redeemed do sin. But would a redeemed person EVER make that statement? -- that the evil he does not want to do he doesn't just occasionally slip into, but he KEEPS ON DOING? That is not a redeemed person, who is not a slave to sin, but is rather a slave to righteousness.

In verse 20, Paul then makes this statement:
"Now, if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."

He is, indeed, a slave to sin. And an unwilling one at that!

He continues a little more until, near the end of chapter 7, there is that heart-rending cry, "Who will rescue me from this body of death?"

and the only possible answer is the precise one he gives: "Thanks be to God -- through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

The last sentence in that chapter reiterates that he is speaking of the unredeemed, or unregenerate soul, when he states that his mind is a slave to God's law and his nature a slave to sin.

To me, this chapter, more clearly than any other section of the Bible, describes the battle in the heart of the unregenerate. Far from being, as the Calvinists claim, incapable of even wanting good, this person wants it and is totally frustrated in his attempts to achieve it. He is truly a slave to sin and sin will not let him go.

Given the descriptions Paul uses and the number of times at the start he refers to his own death spiritually, I am amazed that anyone could consider this section of this chapter a description of a regenerate person. A regenerate person is NOT under the law and NOT a slave to sin!

[ October 28, 2002, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

Simple Pelagianism and antinomianism.......

 

baloney.

Thought I would put as much into my post as you put into yours, Scott.

 

Helen,
The statement:
"Simple antinomianism and Pelagianism" says volmes.

 

It's also baloney

Deal with the issues and the Bible instead of name-calling, OK?

Where is my mistake above?

[ October 28, 2002, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

Helen writes:
"Deal with the issues instead of name calling".

Scott states:
Helen, see, this is part of the problem......this
is a theological discussion board. These are theological terms. No one has called you a name. I have however "tagged" yours, as well a mass of others here, theologically. It is simple Pelagianism and Antinomian.

You call it "baloney", thats the problem.

[ October 29, 2002, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

Hi Helen,

You said, “but I am honestly stunned by the number of men here who seem to think that a baby crying is a sin.”

I agree with you totally that it is positively NOT a sin for a baby to cry. It’s also not a sin for an adult to cry either! Sorrow is better than laughter because it makes the heart better – often leading to salvation (Ecc. 7: 3).

latterrain77

 

Regarding sinning babies and a personal testimony...

Wow, interesting topic and highly controversial, yes, but definitely not unfamiliar to me, personally.

Generally, a question is posed, as I understand it: Are the cute and vulnerable little cherubs of our society (inspiring such poetic beauty, laughter, and joy of celebrated innocence in the whole of human existence) actually capable of “sinning” inside or outside the womb? Very hard to believe, I have to admit. And because of this, many have chosen to say “no” they are not capable of “sin” as we understand it as adults. So, for very obvious reasons, people find the concept hard to grasp. Let’s face it. How can this be? How can a sweet and innocent baby be even remotely conniving or manipulative? This picture is enough to actually inspire a giggle out of most, and sheer disgust from other towards such ridiculousness.

Someone has even expressed that infants have not yet developed a “sin” concept, and therefore, without the adequate brain functioning to perform manipulation or hypocrisy, it is foreign to them and may even be impossible for them at such an early stage of life. Regardless, the reason it is so controversial is that it is most definitely sacred ground. After all, think of the ramification on a society that begins to doubt the sweet smile on such an angelic face? What if society begins to adopt a "blanket" statement about the innocence of infants, or whether “wickedness” is possible as early as life inside or outside the womb? Survival of our species would definitely be at risk to some degree, as we’d most likely cross boundaries of doubt. The only protection an “innocent” newborn is relying on for survival is a strong maternal or paternal bond that it has with direct family members, as well as the obvious physical vulnerability and cuteness factor. Awwww.... If part of that formula is disturbed even slightly, I think we all may be in a little bit of trouble. Think of the consequences if doubt and scrutiny really does begin to creep in regarding the definition of “innocence” itself? It would completely transform everything we know, maybe even as Christians, and brings up huge, unanswered questions. It’s no wonder we’re all so inherently quick to defend the innocence of a child.

But here’s another thought as well: We’re all pretty much deathly afraid of evil in children. Silver screen renditions of these “innocent” children performing evil and unspeakable acts of violence, have been experienced by practically all. This is probably what haunts us most, as a race, possibly most of all; when something that seems so, good and cute, and harmlessly beautiful is so capable of performing evil manipulation. It's quite a predominant theme in movies, books, art, you name it. But isn’t that also part of the theme of the Luciferian dilemma - the most beautifully created of beings, once full of the glory of God; a creation gone awry. By the way, has anyone out there seen the newest psycho-thriller movie regarding an evil child, called “The Ring”? This is an incredibly haunting movie, which also seems to educate us as a whole into the psychological things we find collectively frightening and creepy: Evil children, or the capacity for great evil, is just one of those things I guess.

Well, I don't know about other babies, and whether it is logical to make blanket statements about this whole topic of conversation. I can only speak for myself. So, I hope this little personal testimony into some very painful things in my own life can only help shed some light on a portion of the topic at hand.

As far back as I can remember, I have been extremely angry; the kind of anger that results in clear defensiveness and subsequent events displaying a particular "lashing out" towards my own mother, even as an infant. Along with that, as early as I can remember, I also had great contempt for my own life and have wrestled and struggled with this more than anything else. These two things, however, I can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt, were evident in my most earliest of thought patterns as an infant, definitely - and possibly as a fetus in the womb.

I don't exactly know the answers to “why” to this day, but know the feelings well, even now. In my attempt to define them, (these that are ultimately inexpressible as an infant), I'd like to say that it wasn't just anger, but a spiteful hatred for my mother in particular. I've struggled with this practically all my life as well. I'm actually at a loss when truly trying to define it. It's really awful even expressing it now, and writing about it here, because at this point, it just embarrasses me and brings a lot of guilt. It's so far from the truth of what I am today as a lover of Jesus Christ that it's both disconnected yet memorable at the same time. I really believe that through a series of "deliverance" prayers (as all of this had been steadily rising to the surface for 38 years of life on this earth) that God has either allowed me the strength to maintain it and keep it under tight reign, or has kicked out elements of it completely. I don't even know that to this day.

But I can definitely remember a gnawing kind of something… frustration and hatred and how capable I was at lashing out at my own mother. I wouldn’t be surprised if the kicking I did from the inside wasn’t really meant to hurt her, intentionally. In fact, some of my most earliest actions, even as a newborn outside the womb, convinces me today that there was a dual agenda happening, and that agenda was definitely contrived and of my own choosing: Partly, that I would get back at my parents because I hated them; and also, that it would hopefully kill me in the process as well. I don't really know what else to say about this.

However, in an attempt to express these feelings, that are still so familiar to me as vague thoughts, I have come to a few conclusions regarding certain events, remembered to me by my parents, which I will list here about the first few hours to months of life:

I was a breech baby who came out feet first in 1964; my non-English-speaking mother almost died on the table but was violently "slapped" back into existence by a nurse who had noticed she was fading quickly; I was completely silent at birth, thought dead; and (the obvious one) I absolutely refused to take her breast and refused to eat anything for a dangerously long period of time as a newborn, until the doctor finally advised my parents that they were going to have to apply a force-feeding technique. Thus began the formula necessary for my own survival: Pinch, cry, spoon in the milk. Repeat if necessary. This soon become a daily, weekly, even monthly routine until I, as a baby, couldn't take it anymore and just gave in to the milk.

Now, I know this all sounds quite silly and, re-reading it again, it is long-winded and doesn't really grasp all that I want to say. However, here's the overall picture: I was conceived within the first three months after the birth of my first-born brother (we’re only 11 months apart); I grew up as a classic textbook example of a middle-child; I also experienced the rebelliousness of being a "priest-kid"; had a problematic childhood, horrible, horrible teenage years, only escalating into my 20's; problems dealing with my parents, feelings of gender dysfunction, as well as social dysfunction and suicide... etc. pretty much all my life. And then, I met Jesus, and it's been a slow and steady climb upwards; full of undeserved grace and protection. But I still know those feelings were real. I know that there was intent to "lash out" (dare I say) and even hurt my mother (which I always succeeded in doing for some reason) and from such an "innocent" age. And I know I did it the only way I knew how, or the only way I was capable of, at every stage of growth.

Now, though this is just my experience, knowing that there may be others out there who are aware of their most earliest thoughts or feelings as infants, I still wish not to characterize all infants with my one example. However, unusual as it may seem, it seems right to suggest that God has full foresight and foreknowledge into the lives of those who are truly referred to as “the wicked”. He knows full well that the disease they carry of hypocrisy and evil can most definitely be found in the present, even from such an innocent age. As well, if I myself am no longer counted among the wicked, having received full life in Jesus Christ – yet have experienced thoughts of wickedness as an infant in my most earliest memories, what are the ramifications of just this alone? Who among us can truly say that we are not born into wickedness – all of us – not born into the wrath of God, nor that we’re not completely capable of displaying our wickedness somehow at every stage of life, including infancy, even if it is only visible to the Creator of the Universe alone?

Mary

 

Hi rlvaughn. Thank you for your follow up. I very much appreciate your thoughts on this subject. I apologize that my previous posts did not adequately express my point of view. I will try again to clarify.

I’m suggesting that the tragic event of an infant death, could ITSELF be specific evidence that such a child IS among the elect (i.e. saved). I reach this conclusion due to a number of verses including Matt. 18: 10 (“not one of them” means ALL of them). In addition, Matt. 18: 3 illustrates how the “little children” are already deemed “converted” (saved). In fact, ADULTS are commanded to BE like "little children" (as they are "collectively") to evidence there own salvation. Psalm 131: 2 depicts “weaning babies” as having a “behaved” nature (saved). Job 31: 15 as well as Ecc. 11: 5 show that GOD is actively involved in the development of the baby, and Psalm 127: 3-5 shows that children are a blessing.

On the other side of the coin, I have not found any Biblical evidence to satisfy the view that little babies who do not survive could be sent to hell. Children are a blessing, and Biblically depicted as being “behaved,” “converted” and whose angels are in heaven. How then can they possibly be sent to hell?

There is NO judgment for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8: 1). Since the LORD has proclaimed “little children” as the picture of salvation (Matt. 18: 3) then such one’s must be IN Christ, and accordingly cannot face judgment (Rom. 8: 1) and therefore cannot go to hell.

Little children who DO survive are not necessarily in this category because they, in time, will no longer be little children (since they survived).

A little child on his way to HELL would hardly be a blessing – to either the little child himself or the parents. In fact, such an idea would be crippling to any parent. How do you reconcile such an idea with Psalm 127: 3-5?

I think the idea of a “hellbound” little child is rooted in a flawed misunderstanding of Calvinism (did Calvin himself ever teach such a thing?) and pre-destination. In fact, the whole idea may even have its roots in Matt. 2: 16 where condemning little children to death (eternal death or otherwise) is shown to be WRONG.

If you disagree with my conclusion rlvaughn, then I would very much appreciate your showing me why you think little children who do not survive could potentially be sent to hell (if indeed that is what you are saying). Thank you again rlvaughn. I very much appreciate your input on this subject.

latterrain77

[ November 04, 2002, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Looks pretty clear to me..........