"...shalt surely die."

I never asserted that God is unjust. How do you get that?

This passage deals with personal accountability for sin. It is not talking about Adam's sin or original sin or eternal punishment. It deals with the physical punishment of people in Israel.

 

God kept His Word. He established the sacrificial system that very day. God killed animals, and "clothed" Adam and Eve. The death of the animals was in the place of Adam and Eve. The "covering" signified the covering of their shame/sin.

And scripture tells us "all have sinned", so all deserve punishment.

BTW, Grasshopper is correct. "Soul" was often used to indicate the entire person (both phyical and spirit). We "are" a living soul. We do not "have" souls (according to Gen. 1).

Webdog is also correct. Jewish writers would occasionally use "soul" interchangebly with "spirit".

The Jews understood men to be "two-part" beings, with flesh and spirit.

peace to youraying:

 

skypair and I agree on something! I knew it would happen, I guess, if we kept posting long enough.:applause:

Others have pointed out verses of scripture that specifically say we are conceieved in sin, and that we are sinners at birth and by our very natures. I would suggest that you must address those passages of scripture already mentioned if you wish to validate this doctrine as biblical.

I believe Martin Luther said that infants are only innocent in their limbs. He meant they simply didn't have the physical strength to reveal their sin openly.

When my daughter was 2, I told her not to jump on the couch. She started to sit down, but then stood up, looked me right in the eye and said, "NO!". Being disobedient to parents is sinful, don't you agree; or did that one not "count".

skypair, it isn't about "giving" anyone their "due". It is about the truth. What has God revealed to us in scripture? It can't be about "opinions" being valid. If we must accept all opinions as valid, then we have 6 billions opinions, don't we? That sounds like a whole lot of confusion and very little understanding.

peace to youraying:

 

Sorry, I simply don't remember you addressing those passages in a way that compliments your doctine.

So is Romans 3:10 & 23. Let's see what they say, and then determine if they are in contradiction.

Eze 18:20 essentially says everyone shall be judged according to their own righteousness and sins, not the sins of their fathers.

Romans 3:10&23 says "there is none righteous, not even one" and "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

I can look at these and see it means everyone has sinned and everyone shall be judged for their own sin, not the sins of their fathers.

No contradiction.

You look at these and say that everyone is born innocent, just like Adam. They are capable of not sinning.

I say, "HUH?" Where in the world do you see any mention of Adam and innocence in these verses? Why don't we look at verses of scripture that actually deal with the issue?

And then I might mention Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceieved me." Which indicates we are sinners, even from birth and our sin is ever with us. We are, therefore, not born "innocent" as Adam and Eve were innocent before the fall.

And then I might mention Eph. 2:3, which says we are "by nature, children of wrath". Which indicates we are under the wrath of God because of our human nature. This means our human natures are sinful. Therefore, we have a "sin nature".

And now, again, I would suggest that if you want your doctrine to be upheld under the scrutiny of scripture, and therefore be "biblical", you must address those passages of scripture that directly deal with the subject you are speaking of in such a way that there is no contradiction.

peace to youraying:

 

Let's take a look and see.

You haven't shown any verse of scripture that speaks of infants being "innocent" concerning sin. I'll wait patiently for that. We do know they have a sin nature and are under the wrath of God, according to the Eph. 2 passage, right?

You haven't shown me any passages of scripture that speaks of infants being resurrected into the MK, as infants, and then sinning and thereby incurring the wrath of God. Every last bit of that doctrine is nothing but speculation on your part.

Perhaps, but that doesn't address the whole sin nature issue, does it?

First, calling it "poetic language" does not dismiss the truth found therein, does it? Second, to say the passage is speaking of "being born in the flesh" changes the very words of scripture to make it fit what you want it to say. David says he was conceived in sin and born in iniquity. He is not speaking of "flesh" but of sin.

The passage is found in 2 Samuel 12:23. "But now, he has died: Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me."

This is the only passage I have found in scripture that comes close to answering the question of the fate of children who die as infants. Based on the fact that David's demeanor changed from fasting prior to the child's death, to one of worship after; and that he expected to go to the child when he died as well, leads me to believe David believes the child will be in heaven.

But what is the basis of David's hope? Is it that he believes the child to be "innocent" as you have stated? I don't see that in scripture. I believe David's hope in seeing his child again is based on his understanding that Almighty God is a God of mercy and compassion.

You see, it's not that the child was "innocent" and therefore deserved to go to heaven. It is because God is merciful and full of compassion that infants that die go to heaven.

BTW, based on your previous statements that infants that die are resurrected into the MK, then David really didn't have any reason to hope, did he? His son may, in fact, turn to sin in the MK (according to your doctrine) and thus be excluded from heaven. David, and scripture, would therefore be incorrect in saying "I shall go to him....", since the best he can say is "maybe I'll get to see him in the MK"; according to your doctrine.

Of course it is "sin guilt". Why else would we be under the wrath of God if not for sin guilt? And where in scripture do you see anything about "excersising our survival instincts unlawfully" being the definition of a "sin nature"?

To answer your question, I don't think you did very well in addressing the passages of scripture. You tried to dismiss one as "poetic" and then change its words to fit what you wanted it to mean. And......

I'll just leave it at that for now.

peace to youraying:

 

What are the wages of sin?

Death.

Do infants not experience death?

Is this death limited to 'spiritual' death, or the 'death of the soul' as you would understand it related to the separation from God experienced by Adam and Eve upon sinning?

do we who are knowledgeable of our sins, sin only in our souls, or do we follow the lusts of the flesh?

Again, why do infants experience death in the flesh, having not sinned until first having an ability to understand the consequences of their sin.

bro. Dallas:wavey:

 

:applause: Sometimes the most obvious things are the last to be noticed. Well said.

peace to youraying:

 

...and the most incorrect. The wages of sin is death...BUT...the gift of God is eternal life. The "but" tells you what kind of death...spiritual death.

 

Come on, webdog, how can you possibly read Romans 6 and not see Paul is speaking of phyical death? Just look at the next two verses "7:1: Or do you not know , brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives."

Are you saying Paul is teaching that once a person dies spiritually, the law had no more jurisdiction over them? That is nonsense.

7:2 "For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband"

Are you claiming that Paul is teaching that a woman is only bound to her husband, under the law, as long as he is alive spiritually? If he dies spiritually, she is no longer bound?

Paul is clearly speaking of physical death.

peace to youraying:

 

Spiritual and bodily death

Wages of our sin is a spiritual and physical death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The wages of our sin wasn't a spirtual death?

 

...but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Eternal life is referring to our physical bodies then? If it is in regards to physical death as you claim, why do we die physically if "through Jesus Christ our Lord" we are granted eternal life?

Wages is in regards to payment. What sins do the infant pay for...being conceived?!?

 

glad to hear from you again, my dear brother.
I trust God has been very graceful to you.

Brother pinoy

 

If we sin?

And what if we do not?

We must surely live, therefore we (bearing in mind we are speaking now of infants not yet actively engaged in sin) and not ourselves who were unfortunate enough to have lived beyond a mysterious age of accountability, it is obvious that such a one who does not sin does not, will not and even cannot die.

Thus, such a person has no need for the glorious redemption of our kinsman; their own good nature, nay, righteousness becomes the intermediary, the atonement, their...wait a minute, they yet would have no need of atonement.

Such humanism effectively denies the very Word of God, the Logos.

bro. Dallas:wavey:

Dear Brother pinoybaptist,
The Lord has been very gracious to me, despite of my having stumbled upon the conditional if.:tonofbricks:

 

The resurrection of our physical bodies brings us into eternal life with Jesus Christ. If it is just a spiritual life we are given, there is no need for the resurrection of our physical bodies. And the context remains clear. Paul is speaking of physical death.

You tell me, why do they die, if they have no sin? If they are innocent, like Adam before the fall when sin and death entered, why do they die?

peace to youraying:

 

Did Adam know his wife and she conceived before or after the fall?

Thus, man is created in the likeness of God, but procreated in the likeness of Adam.

Is this concept foreign to scripture?

Did Levi not pay tithes to Mechelsidek though in Abram?

bro. Dallas:wavey: