Psalm 58:3 (and babies)

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Helen:
...(a baby cannot know what sin is)...(This is an interesting example for Paul to use, for the first thing a toddler does is grab what is his and want what the other kid has to be his, too. This is probably the earliest sin...)...(This means, at the very minimum, that sin is powerless to separate a child from God until the child knows the law...)

Helen, first of all, I do not agree with your interpretation of Romans 7. But even if I grant that you are correct in that interpretation, this does not specifically address the issue of whether a baby sins. You are addressing the issue of whether a baby consciously and knowingly sins and whether they are responsible. Though related, these are two different propositions. That is one reason I quoted Romans 2:12, which indicates one can sin "without law." But I am also curious that if a baby cannot sin because he doesn't know it is sin, how does the small toddler commit his first sin by grabbing "what is his and want[ing] what the other kid has to be his, too"?

If you want to take it totally literally that the wicked speak lies from birth, then you are going to have to go with the speaking thing, too. And babies don't speak...

I have never indicated that "speaking" here has to be limited to English, Hebrew, Greek or any other language. It means uttering or communicating, which a baby is capable of doing. What if a person signs a lie in sign language? Is it no lie because it is not "spoken"? Or what if a person writes a lie? Is it no lie because it is not "spoken"? But again, even if I grant that you are right on "the speaking thing," still you have earlier stated (on your 1st post on this topic) that dabar means "arranging lies." Is it less sinful to arrange a lie than to speak one (or not sinful at all)?

...while infants are born as sinners, they are not dead YET, even though they are subject to death. The death sentence is there, but not carried out...

Some of the verses I noted, IMO, do not refer only to spiritual death, but implicate physical death as well. Why are babies subject to physical death? Because in Adam all die. The soul that sinneth shall die.

We've been through this before, but just to recap and then I'm finished with this one...Knowing that this won't sway you, I am hoping it will help some of those reading to see clearly what the Bible is actually saying.

You are correct that it probably won't sway me. I have held this position as long as I have held any particular position concerning sin. BUT it is possible that I can be changed. I have been studying the Bible regularly for a number of years, and the Bible has forced me to change my position many times. And I hope I'm not through changing yet! Nevertheless, I also understand that I probably won't sway you. BUT, as you, I also hope that it will help the understanding of some who are reading this. To me that's a good reason to persevere, even though I don't expect to "win you over."

 

[latterrain77]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
At least on the surface, this verse appears to say that babies speak lies as soon as they are born.

Hi rlvaughn. The verse does NOT say that "babies" speak lies as soon as they are born. It says the WICKED (unsaved) are estranged (seperated) and go astray as soon as they are born. The key word in this verse is “wicked" NOT "babies."

Yes, it is true that the non-elect are deemed unsaved (i.e. wicked) from the moment they are born (which is the moment of conception). However, this does NOT apply universally to “babies” as MANY babies are SAVED (elect) from the womb - from the foundations of the world.

latterrain77

[ October 25, 2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Lartterrain,
If I can speak for riVaughn: Based on the premise that God regenerates even in the womb as He wills, and that the doctrine of election stands, those infants whom are not regenerated in the womb or at least until they ARE regenerate, are (as you have posed) *wicked* and sin/speak lies even from conception.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by latterrain77:
The verse does NOT say that "babies" speak lies as soon as they are born. It says the WICKED (unsaved) are estranged (seperated) and go astray as soon as they are born. The key word in this verse is “wicked" NOT "babies."

Well I must believe that as soon as one is born he is a "baby". But you are correct in that this specific verse does not say that all babies go astray and speak lies as soon as they are born. Neither does it prove that they do not. David is talking about a specific group of people - the wicked. But he is speaking of them as babies in verse 3. The conclusion as to how this idea relates to ALL babies must be based on comparing this scripture to other scriptures. Notice in what you quote, I used the verse as proof that "babies" go astray as soon as they are born and speak lies, and did not say all babies. But, yes, I have also argued that what is true in this verse of these babies is true of all babies. ALL are sinners. There is none that doeth good and sinneth not.

Yes, it is true that the non-elect are deemed unsaved (i.e. wicked) from the moment they are born (which is the moment of conception). However, this does NOT apply universally to “babies” as MANY babies are SAVED (elect) from the womb - from the foundations of the world.

I am curious then, are you taking the position that the "SAVED (elect)" babies ARE NOT BORN SINNERS - that only the "non-elect...unsaved (i.e. wicked)" are born sinners??? This sounds like what you are saying. Paul says that some who were quickened (or made alive) were dead in trespasses and sins and were by nature the children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3). It sounds as if you are saying that some (the saved, elect) are not by their nature the children of wrath - only the lost are by nature the children of wrath. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." "In Adam all die." I will look forward to your clarifying what you mean in the second half of that post. Thanks.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey:
...those infants whom are not regenerated in the womb or at least until they ARE regenerate, are...*wicked* and sin/speak lies even from conception.

Scott, I did not see your post before I posted. I think you and I (and it seems latterrain as well) would all agree that there are at least some infants that "sin/speak lies even from conception". I don't see how one could hardly evade at least that much from this verse.

 

[HankD]

Hi Scott,

RE:
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come

While the circumstances are different, the principle (IMO) is the same. No law, no sin is imputed.
Even though there was no sin imputed, they died anyway as Paul points out.
To me "no Law (Torah) means an inability to receive it as well an absence of the same.

Now why then would they (heathen adults) be condemned and not the infant.
Because of the common grace gift of the conscience which does not fully develop in a little one until several years have gone by.

It is my personal conviction that quickening/regeneration comes first, followed by belief and that in some cases regeneration can and does happen in the womb.

Latterrain: Hi. I agree with you that Psalm 58:3 is NOT a model of all infant humanity, but there seems to be a class of "wicked" who are so from the womb. It would seem that these put their stamp of approval on what they are by nature at this earliest stage of self-awareness.

I don't believe this point of view contradicts the so-called doctrine of the "total depravity of man". This is our potential and is what we would be if left to our own devices had we not the common grace gifts of God of government, conscience, and in this age, the universal reproving work of the Holy Spirit.

Without His intervention and gifts we would have destroyed ourselves ages ago. These He provided to preserve the continuity of the human race through the ages.

HankD

[ October 25, 2002, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Hank,
You write:
"no Law (Torah) means an inability to receive it as well an absence of the same.

Scott asks:
When was there "no law"? Do you believe God did not have "law" prior to the Mosaic?

Why do infants die?

Look at the scripture........"NEVER-THE-LESS" people (in general), even them (infants) who had not sinned in the manner of father Adam, Die.

Please clearify Hank, et al:
Sin nature = Death, but not necessarily sinner.
Sin nature = the capacity to sin, not implying that someone *HAD* sinned.

Rom 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:

Scott writes:
The Greek word "sinned" (Harmartalos) is an aorist tense, meaning that at one point in time all men sinned.

[ October 26, 2002, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

[HankD]

Dear Scott,

You posted...

Hank,
You write:
"no Law (Torah) means an inability to receive it as well an absence of the same.

Scott asks:
When was there "no law"? Do you believe God did not have "law" prior to the Mosaic?

I believe He did and that it was codifed to a certain extent. However it was given only to the families of the promised seed until its content was enhanced and its scope was modified for the 12 tribes of the nation of Israel.

Israel then was a witness to the world.

2 Chronicles 6
32 Moreover concerning the stranger, which is not of thy people Israel, but is come from a far country for thy great name's sake, and thy mighty hand, and thy stretched out arm; if they come and pray in this house;
33 Then hear thou from the heavens, even from thy dwelling place, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to thee for; that all people of the earth may know thy name, and fear thee, as doth thy people Israel, and may know that this house which I have built is called by thy name.

Psalm 96:1 O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth.
2 Sing unto the LORD, bless his name; shew forth his salvation from day to day.
3 Declare his glory among the heathen, his wonders among all people.
4 For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.
5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

Why do infants die?

1 Corinthians 15
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Just as Levi paid tithes in Abraham we all sinned in Adam.

HankD

[ October 26, 2002, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Hi ya Hank,
Thanks for the reply........
You add:
1 Corinthians 15
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Scott asks:
Why do men and infants die?

[ October 26, 2002, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

[HankD]

Scott asks:
Why do men and infants die?

I don't know what else to say apart from the scripture "in Adam all die".

HankD

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Hank........come now.
Why do all die in Adam?

 

[HankD]

I believe the confusion here is coming from the difference between imputed and actual sin.

In Adam we all receive the consequence of our human father's sin.

Sooner or later every human being will put his/her stamp of approval upon sin if they live long enough. I don't know the criteria for the ability to approve of sin.

Apparently this can happen even in the womb.
However, salvation also seems possible in the womb.

How this works and how frequently we are not told.
Just that both seem to happen.

I believe that Helen was speaking of actual or practical sin which cannot be committed by someone who has not the full capacity of emotion, intellect and will.

It would seem that the criteria of that limited capacity can only be known to God (IMO).

HankD

[ October 26, 2002, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[TomMann]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. - Psalm 58:3 King James Version
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God has always created thru his Word. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.....

In the beginning God said "Let there be", and
there was; and He said "Let" and it was so. So
when God says "It is", it is impossible for it not to be.

Whether God has said as to Abraham "I have made you the father of many nations", or thru the Psalmist "The wicked are estranged from the womb", the creation of the event or the truth is from the speaking, and revelation of that creation is in his time.

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Hank writes:
I believe the confusion here is coming from the difference between imputed and actual sin.

Scott states:
Imputation implies that Adams sin has stained each and every individual at the level of the soul. Hence, based upon this stain, all are estranged of God. *Actual sin* is secondary to the consequences of the "imputed sin".

Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God,


Hank adds:
In Adam we all receive the consequence of our human father's sin.

As I had posed earlier in another thread to C. Kritzer, the Greek termonology cannot be misinterpreted. The word "sinned/harmartolos" is in the aorist tense. This tense indicates that whomever is being referred to (the sinner), this person has in the past sinned.

There is no way to disconnect the exegesis of Romans 5:19.
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners , so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

1) One mans disobedience = Many made sinners
2) Obedience of one = Many made righteous

Sinners: Greek/harmartolos (Strongs# 268)
Defined as "Exposed to the punishment of sin".

~Sin natures do not necessarily imply *sinning*.
~Sin natures do not necessarily deserve *punishment* for their nature.

The term harmartolos denotes that the sinner is subject directly to punishment for the sin.

Verses using the same Greek word:

Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners(harmartolos) to repentance.

Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners (harmartolos). But wisdom is justified of her children.

Luke 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners (harmartolos), and eateth with them.

Luke 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners (harmartolos) also do even the same.

John 9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners (harmartolos): but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners (harmartolos), Christ died for us.

Gal 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners (harmartolos) of the Gentiles,
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners (harmartolos), is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

1 Tim 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
1 Tim 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners (harmartolos), for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

~there is no way to misinterpret what Paul is saying. We were made harmartolos due to Father Adam....in the same way, we were made righteous by Christs imputation of righteousness to His people!

 

[HankD]

Dear Scott,

I'm not sure we disagree.

With one minor exception concerning the koine Greek aorist tense which you may already know.

While the aorist tense is normally translated as the simple past, it can be used to indicate present or future tense: Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament;The Epistolary Aorist. Page 198. MacMillan, 1955.

HankD

[ October 26, 2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Hank,
If we agree, then infants are born in a state of separation from God, unless of course regenerated in the womb or infancy, based upon the imputed sin of Adam, and are perishing.

It is not just a nature "bent" towards sin, as a nature bent towards sin does not necessarily imply, "having sinned". It is sin cast on the account of every individual after conception. It is sin that is judged already and condemnation cast on the sinner.

Spiros Zodhiates writes in regards to the lexicology of the word Harmartolos:

To deviate, to sin, a sinner. Frequently denotes an heinous & habitual sinner.

The term is also used to imply "one who has been punished for sin".

The Vines definition:
One who misses the mark, used to describe the fallen condition of man,

The Blue Letter Bible:
268 hamartolos {ham-ar-to-los'}

from 264; TDNT - 1:317,51; adj

AV - sinner 43, sinful 4; 47

1) devoted to sin, a sinner
1a) not free from sin
1b) pre-eminently sinful, especially wicked
1b1) all wicked men
1b2) specifically of men stained with certain definite vices or crimes
1b2a) tax collectors, heathen

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

[ October 26, 2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

[latterrain77]

Hi rlvaughn. Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your thoughts.

You said, “… But, yes, I have also argued that what is true in this verse of these babies is true of all babies. ALL are sinners. There is none that doeth good and sinneth not.”

It is true that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of GOD (Romans 3: 23). Yet, once a person becomes saved they are no longer deemed wicked – even though they will continue to sin (1 Cor. 6: 11). Once someone becomes saved, they are no longer the “children of wrath” as you mentioned (Eph. 2: 1-3) but rather they are the “children of light” (1 Thess. 5: 5, Eph. 5: 8).

You said, “I am curious then, are you taking the position that the "SAVED (elect)" babies ARE NOT BORN SINNERS - that only the "non-elect...unsaved (i.e. wicked)" are born sinners??? This sounds like what you are saying. Paul says that some who were quickened (or made alive) were dead in trespasses and sins and were by nature the children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3). It sounds as if you are saying that some (the saved, elect) are not by their nature the children of wrath - only the lost are by nature the children of wrath. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." "In Adam all die." I will look forward to your clarifying what you mean in the second half of that post. Thanks.”

Being “wicked” and having a “sin nature” are not the same thing. The “sin nature” continues to exist in everyone even AFTER they are saved. For example, the Apostle Paul laid claim to having a very LARGE sin nature long after he was saved (Romans 7: 15-25). Do you believe that Paul’s admission to being a sinner makes him one of the “children of wrath” in the Eph. 2: 1-3 verses that you mentioned? I say NO! As a result of his Romans 7 admission and confession, was he one of the “wicked” ones as described in Psalm 58: 3? I say NO!

What about Peter and his sin nature? Was he among the “children of wrath”? Again, I say no. What about Thomas and his sin nature? David and Bathsheeba – were they among the wicked described in Psalm 58: 3? NO! Solomon? No! Jonah? No! None of these sinners were the “children of wrath” in the Eph. 2: 1-3 verses you mentioned, nor were any of them the “wicked” of the Psalm 58: 3 verse that is the subject of your question. Yet EACH of these individuals ALL had a “sin nature” which persisted even throughout there SAVED lives. 1 John 1: 10 further illustrates this point.

So then, the Psalm 58: 3 verse speaks of the “wicked” (unsaved) and does NOT speak universally about “babies” – many of which are just as saved as you and I. Thank you again rlvaughn. I appreciate your thoughts on this subject.

latterrain77

[ October 26, 2002, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

[Baptist Vine]

Why is it necessary to demonstrate that a baby has sinned in it's actions? What is it that makes it necessary to find some action on the part of a baby and call it a sinful action?

I am making a distinction between a nature and an action. Ultimately we are sinners because of what is in our souls, even if it is latent. At birth I had a sinful nature, but I don't know when my first action was regarded as sinful.

Right now I'm typing at the keyboard. I don't think I'm sinning. My sin nature is still there though.

We are all sinners from our birth. Yes. But ths is referring to our natures is it not? So even a baby has a sinful nature - no dispute there. But there is nothing to say exactly at what time the person with a sinful nature will actually committ a sinful act.

I have a defective gene lets say, for some disease. At some point it kicks in and I present with some symptoms. The gene has expressed itself physically, manifested. But even prior to the manifestation and presentation the defect is still within me.

We are all sinners, born with a sinful nature. That includes babies. At some point the nature begins to express, present and manifest, and we comitt sinful acts. Our actions become sin.

I don't see a conflict to resolve. I don't see a dilema that requires the apologists are. There is no conundrum to resolve. Someone can safely say that a baby, fresh out the mother's womb has not yet committed a sinful act and every scripture is still satisfied. The baby is a sinner because it has that nature. All the scriptures are fulfilled. We are still ultimately sinners, babies included, even if we are not presently committing sinful acts. My sinful nature is enough to require a saviour. The baby's real nature, even though it's a infant is the same one as ours, and will ultimately manifest itself.

 

[Bible-belted]

About Romans 7.

First it is not likely that Paul is speaking of himself as a regenerate person. Paul is in fact looking back on his own life. He is describing his experiemnce as a Jew under the law beofre his conversion. He uses his experience as representative.

I am not saying that Paul does not argue that Christians struggle against the desires of the flesh. I am saying that he does not make that argument in Romans 7.

Second, abut the translation "sinful nature. Here is an example of a bad translation clouding the issue. The NIV translation in Romans 7:18 is misleading. The term "sinful nature" is more accurately "flesh". Paul is referring to his physical body. Tha this is so is suggested by the fact that in v.25 flesh is contrasted witht he mind, and as well as (and perhaps more tellingly( in v. 23, where the "other law"m meaning that of sin, dwells, as Paul says, in his "members". This can only refer to his physial body.

Corrrect those two errors and things clear up dramatically.

 

[rlvaughn]

latterrain, you responded in your post to something that seems to have been unclear in mine:

It sounds as if you are saying that some (the saved, elect) are not by their nature the children of wrath - only the lost are by nature the children of wrath.

I did not intend to imply that these Ephesians were still the children of wrath after their conversion, only that they were before. My comment was not clear. So what I meant rather was to ask if you think that one who is elect from before the foundation of the world is not a "child of wrath" at the time they are born but before they are regenerated.

Originally posted by latterrain77:
So then, the Psalm 58: 3 verse speaks of the “wicked” (unsaved) and does NOT speak universally about “babies” – many of which are just as saved as you and I.

Back to the verse at hand - I am still not clear on what you are saying. Are you referring to children who die in infancy? What basis do we have for claiming that many babies are just as saved as you and I? I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with you. I don't understand where you're coming from.