"...shalt surely die."

Babies are not innocent -- only Christ . You have an attachment to sentiment -- not the Bible .

 

That is true.

 

I thought you have said in the past the Bible doesn't mention infants at all, that It is silent on the topic...so how can you claim they are not innocent? What sin have they commited to be anything but?

 

All Scripture Will Be From The NLTse

I never said what you claimed I said ( But what's new on that front ? You and SP are a pair ) .

Genesis 8:21 : ... everything they think or imagine is bent toward evil from childhood .

Job 15:14 : Can any mortal be pure ? Can anyone born of a woman be just ?

Job 25:4 : How can a mortal be innocent before God ? Can anyone born of a woman be pure ?

Psalm 51:5 : For I was born a sinner -- yes , from the moment my mother conceived me .

Psalm 58:3 : These wicked people are born sinners ; even from birth they have lied and gone their own way .

Isaiah 48:8b : For I know what traitors you are . You have been rebels from birth .

 

First, I said I THOUGHT that was your view, I never stated it WAS your view, so drop the attitude. The views are easy to mix when you deal with a number of people, but I'm sure you have never had that problem before.

Second, I only see Scripture taken out of context to support a false proof text. As you say, what new on that front? (while I like the NLT, it does have some flaws in some areas, particularly Psalm 51. That clearly was interpreted with a reformed bent, and not the meaning of what David was saying. A sinner is one who commits sin. If one is born a sinner, they commited some sin in the womb. What would that have been?)

 

TNIV for Ps. 51:5 : Surely I was sinful at birth , sinful from the time my mother conceived me .

HCSB for Ps. 51:5 : Indeed , I was guilty [ when I ] was born ; I was sinful when my mother conceived me .

NLTse for Ps. 51:5 : For I was born a sinner -- yes , from the moment my mother conceived me .

Hmm , I don't see any significant differences between these major Bible translations . Are they all "interpreted with a Reformed bent" ? Or , are these among many other translations actually faithful to the original ? Get off your Calvinistic-bashing bent or to the doghouse you will go .

 

I know calvist like me are children learning. We have a lot to learn from scriptur you can't with a closed door, this is the way it has been for thousands of years. Calvinist teaching is an incomplete work just like anything that comes from man. The only complete work that comes from God is scripture. I cannot hate a child. So I pray you do not hate me a child.

We can learn from any scripture that is given to us by God through His word with light from other scripture. I see scripture that calvinist have not concidered as scripture they showed me that I didn't concider. I'm willing to learn, some are as stubburn as Israel and refuse to learn especially as it goes again thier doctrine. I learned from a seveth day how to look at context.

The scripture teaches us who are the one's writen in the book of life. God said that He was going to keep the meek and the humble who trust in the name of the Lord. I surely will not trust in my election that men have been cut out of for unbelief, but trust in Jesus to get me there.

Shelah

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalms 109:31
Election cannot save you, because you can be cut out for unbelief.

Romans 11:17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

12See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. 14We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. 15As has just been said:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion."

Hebrews 3:16Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? 18And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed[Or disbelieved]? 19So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

Jude:5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[Some early manuscripts Jesus ] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Men do not need to be lied to and say that we are saved by election that people will be cut out of for unbelief, but need to know who God has chosen to keep the meek and the humble who trust in the name of the Lord.

We are meek and humble we do not think we are deserving of God's mercy, but we are depending on Him and His mercy. It is your opinion that men are deserving because we are meek and humble. No meek and humble person believes thay are deserving of God's mercy those are words you are putting in our mouth.

 

Themselves Web, themselves.
And why, because of their sin nature which compells them TO sin. They can not help it. Why not? Because it is in their nature to do so. There were only two people in history created 'innocent' and they were Adam and Eve. Remember this is as much a Non-Cal view as it is a Cal (with minor differences here and there but the same under lying truth)

Otherwise (and think about this) why must we train up our children in the ways of righteousness. Why does a child 'instinctively' do that which is wrong or disobedient? Why must we teach them to do that which is right? It is because of their sin nature manifests itself as the child grows to ages where their nature is revealed by their actions and intents. The child does wrong not because he/she is taught to but because their nature is naturally manifesting itself as the child grows and is able to express themselves accordingly. Even you agree that we are all accountable for the truth that has been given us, so it is even with children. To know to do good and do it not to them it is sin. But why do they do (again and again) that which is wrong? It is not because they are innocent but because they have a fallen or corrupt nature = sinful (contrary toward God) nature.

They are sinners not so much (regarding infants and children) because they have commited some sin but because it is who they inherently are. Yes, they are accountable for their own sins and not their parents or Adams, YET it is their sin nature that is at odds with God and it is that nature that manifests that itself in them through sin. Gods wrath is even upon a new born, not because they have specifically sinned in some way (because no charge can be laid against them who do not know a specific sin) but because they have a nature that is in direct conflict with the Holiness of God (absolutely pure with no stain or taint) and that Holiness must be appeased by the removal of that with which it is in conflict. God must remove (judge) everything that is not in line with His Holiness.

And even though we are inherently sinful, it is God's love and mercy that with holds God Holy Wrath against sin back for a time. Remember, sin is ANYTHING that is in direct conflict with the nature and character of God whether in thought, deed, or being. We are not sinful because we sin but we sin because we are sinful (literally sin-filled, corrupt = sin nature). The verse that is commonly used - the soul that sinneth shall certainly die - Notice if you will the word 'shall' which simply means 'will' or 'is going to', this word is looking toward an up coming event, which in this case is death. Not that the soul that sins is or becomes dead at that moment. By it's very wording that establishes that it is refering to a physical aspect and not a spiritual one. The soul that sinneth (means to continue in sin) will CERTAINLY die (not escape Gods judgment).

I agree with you that a child/infant has done no work of sin to be blamed for nor is he/she judged for Adams sin. But Adam passed on his fallen or better corrupt nature to his children and they their children, and they their children, et, et, et... That child was created from two fallen people with sin natures, so what offspring will they produce ? Answer: a child with a sin nature or currupt nature just like it's parents because it is created from everything those parents have to offer and therefore that child is created in a fallen state. That fallen state automatically sets it against the Holiness of God and thus God wrath rests upon them as it does us. Therefore Christ is as much their mediator just as He is ours and their salvatin is as much by grace as is ours. Children are all created in sin which is literally - created in or from a fallen state (thus they to are inherently sinfull since they come from the same). And though they have yet to willfully do anything sinful but are still certain to do and be what they are by nature - to become the sinner they by nature are.

Thus we see what great love He has toward Children who can not yet choose to sin much less call upon Him to save them from themselves due to their sins which they have done by natue. But that He would by His grace to take them unto Himself those children in mercy, who are/were unable to call upon the Name of the Lord, instead He called them to Himself through and because of Christ and His attoning and mediatorial work.

 

I get what you are saying, but having a sin nature does not equate to guilt. otherwise even believers retaining a sin nature remain at odds with God. Also, infants being "sinful", would die and automatically perish in hell. There is no way around that. Either Christ atoned for them having a sin nature, or He didn't.

I believe that at some point early on in life (before they turn one), a child will sin, but like Abimilech, will be seen as innocent due to the very fact they have no knowledge of that sin, that which is needed to be found guilty in God's eye.

I agree that infants have a sin nature from birth, and that is why they are appointed ONCE to die. That is the curse put upon mankind, the first death, not the second, but I don't agree that they are sinners until they commit sin (what sinner literally means).

 

Ok, with reference to guilt -
You are refering to them beng guilty for committing some sin, right? And thus incurring Gods wrath agaist their rebellion.
I think (and this is my opinion) you are not realizing the scope of the sin nature.
Sin is the manifestation of the sin nature not vise versa and I think we both agree on that. We sin becuase it is our nature TO sin, it is who and what we are.
The manifestation of sin is derived FROM our nature and thus that nature is the sourse from which all things contrary to God come from. It is for this reason God not only saves us from our sins (both the action and consequenses thereof) but also from the very sourse of that sin by giving us a 'New Nature' AND the Holy Spirit to bring the old nature under submission.

You are right that even believers ARE at odds with God at times, as Believers struggle daily with sin in our lives to live unto Him. (Rom 7) Paul even states "who can save me from this body of sin". His answer: He praises God for and through Jesus Christ.

Question: If a person has a sin nature, do they have a .0000000000000001% of doing anything righteous (as in salvic or meritorious) before God? If not, then by your own admission they are guilty by virtue of who they are, and the what that they will do later is only the manifestation of who they are already.

About the infants and dying -
You are right again that if it were not for Christ's death and resurrection they to would die and go straight into hell. You might state that they didn't have the chance to choose one way or the other. But THAT is the whole point, why would they need to choose if the were sinless and innocent before God.
Remember even you agreed that they have a sin nature and that it is from that nature our desire to and for sin comes. It is that very nature that seperates us from God in the first place and our actions once we come to understanding merely express who and what we already were.

Children are not condemned FOR sin but their sin nature has already kept them seperated from God and thus they to are under condemnation do to their nature which is already contrary to Gods. God had to bring not only the sin itself, and the consequinces of sin under the blood of Christ to satifiy the Holiness of God but He also had to deal with the sourse of that sin, the sin nature itself.
But I will let you answer and not me for you.

Think about it though - What kind of a physician treats the symtoms and not the disease itself? Answer: Not a good one and certainly not the Supreme one, agreed? So the sin nature must be dealt with in Christ just as the sin which procedes from it is.

Agreed, when we are talking about being guilty of sinning. However it is the sin nature of man which sin procedes from and that nature is contrary to God from the beginning and a direct affront to God Holiness because of what it IS and not what it will do. Thus we see Gods great mercy, grace and Love toward man in not destroying us but in knowing who we were, Christ died for us becuase of His great Love for us. The sin nature does not presupose guilt, it establishes we are guilty because it reveals who's child we really are before God as our Judge and thus we stand in condemnation awaiting damnation unless God send us Salvation and Hope. And He did

I'm not so sure that death is curse in the most literal sense (another debate :laugh: ) We are under the condemnation not damnation. Condemnation means we are found guilty but not yet sentenced. Damnation reflects an established sentence, thus 'once to die, then the judgment'. Infants with a sin nature will be judged and their judgment will be based first upon who they are and then their works. If they have a sin nature and they do not have a new nature which is in and from Christ then their judgment will be in accordance with all those not found in Christ, and then they would be judged according to their works.

It is their sin nature that condemns them because that is who they are, they are fallen and corrupt at best Web. Yet it is by God's mercy and grace through Christ who mediates with His blood for them and saves.

 

Great post Allan,

About the infants and dying and what happens, I'm sure you know by now I cannot commit to one view because of lack of Bible support. I have heard all the verses on both sides, and in all cases you have to read things into it, in order to reach your view. I really don't want to talk about that right now.

I would like you to address this. It seems like both of you are saying if a person does not know that a sin expression is in fact a sin unto God, that no guilt is placed on the expresser (if that is a word).

Today, because of the declining fabric in or nation, many sins that were once viewed as sin by even the unsaved, no longer are thought about being sinful. The sinner will do what they do, because every one else is doing it, and they do what they do with no thoughts of God and Gods law. They are raised in a non-believer home where mom and dad never tell them about God nor do they think about Gods law. Even if Mom says they should not do something, this is based not on the Bible, but based on how Mom views right and wrong. Now deep in side, because Mom was exposed to the gospel years ago, there maybe a hidden thought still within her, based on the Bible, but because she has rejected God she does not put the two together as the law of God, and therefore does not pass this on to her child when she says, do not do this. So even if there is guilt for an expression of that sin, it is guilt from Moms law, if in fact they must know of Gods law to be guilty. At best the child is told to be good, because Santa is watching them, not God.

I have met people, mostly younger, that have never thought of God nor his Law. Where once it was “wrong” to even the non-believer to live together before marriage, most will not be married till they first live together. To them is that a sin? No one told them it was wrong. They see it done each day on TV. Nothing wrong with it…right?

 

(modified by me) It is and it isn't. Though God knows it is a sin against Him that does not necessitate that 'your' sin or guilt thereof is yet imputed against you BY Him. You find it all over God's word from the OT to the NT. We have had this discussion before (a couple of times - long ago)
Here is one verse which sets forth the claim by Christ himself and typically a primary one used:

Here is an example of that verse in action:

If you will note that Abimelech married a married woman, which WE know is a sin, God knew it, and he also knew it to be sin. But he married her without KNOWING she was married. And as I'm sure you know, I will take you to verse 6 in which God states He kept Abimelech from sinning against Him. We know that scripture states All sin is against God, and we see that in the psalms of David as he states "for against you alone have I sinned". So if Abimelech married a married woman which even to that pagan was wrong or sinful - HOW can God state He 'kept' Abimelech from sinning against Him, when we KNOW he DID in fact sin by marrying Sarah. Why was he not guilty before God for his sin in this? God tell us why. The reason is because just earlier stated what Abimelech did was in 'the intergrity of thine heart' THEREFORE he had no guilt before the Lord in that matter, EVEN THOUGH he DID in fact commit a sin.

That is just one example but it is crystal clear from the passage that God did not inpute the sin against him because what he did was done in the integrity of his heart and therefore he had not sinned against God. But if you read to verse 7 you will see that if he does not let Sarah go IT WILL BE sin and he and all his will die.

But God has set forth a moral law in the hearts of ALL men, given them a conscience to know the most basic moral values and truths. Thus they know to do good things and can even do them because it is something they ALREADY know. Even Jesus compares sinful mans ability to give good things to our children with that God giving to His Children. Christ Himself compared unregenerate mans basic moral good with God's absolute good. Now granted there is a difference but the illistration Christ gave establishes the fact that even the reprobate knows or has a basic understanding of good and evil and can do either but not in any meritorious or salvic sense.

That does not matter in the least. When they come against their conscience and the moral good inherently known of men they must choose to act contrary to it. The more they push it aside the less it will bother them until their conscience becomes seared by a hot iron (I believe referencing Gods judgment - He gives them over to their sins (Rom 1:18 -, and 2 Thes 2:10-12)

 

Unfortunately Sky, the sin nature is NOT survival instinct and I know of no one (other than you) that makes such a claim - ever.

And though it could be considered a will of or better for self, that of itself makes it contrary to God and thus under His wrath. The sin nature is a fallen or corrupt nature that we are ALL born with.

As for my children 'pooping' and spanking them. I have never made it a rule under my roof for my children not to use the bathroom or they will be disciplined for acting against my rules. Thus your comment not only was but is inane. And as Giligan would say - Yeah, and it made no sense either.

Editted by me.

 

Still waiting sky. You accused me of character assassination. Provide the quote. Or were you really lying?
Of course one quote from a supposedly Calvinist would not be proof of what all or even a minority of Calvinist believe huh?
Why don't you just apologize for your misrepresentation and false witness and be done with it?