Well, my supposition is supported, your would not be. A sinner is one who sins. Sin is the intentional violation of God law. Read Romans 7.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Something is Bothering me
- Thread starter Thinkingstuff
- Start date
Well, since the very definition of sinner is "one who sins", that would make that child a sinner, would it not? Sinners need saving, yes?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Ah but Psalms says that
And Ephesians
and again in Romans
It seems by nature of our birth we are already condemened whether we personally sinned or not. Therefore wouldn't the same judgement be upon children who die?
I suppose they could. Perhaps that is a possibility, since salvation is by faith. The Bible teaches to avoid such questions that have no answers. It also says: "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right." The answer lay in God's hand, and in those hands do I put my trust. He is the Creator; I am His creature. I am not at liberty to command the Creator to do what I want him to do.
None of that refutes the notion a sinner is one who sins.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
But is a person who is born in sin a sinner without making the decision to sin? These verses seem to imply that.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
God in his infinite wisdom has chosen not to reveal everything to us.
I think it is better to be satisfied with an "I don't know answer," or "the Bible isn't clear on that subject," rather than give an arrogant answer and be wrong.
Can a person be called a rapist without ever committing a rape? Can a person who has never stolen anything be called a thief? Being born in sin, and being born a sinner are not one in the same thing.
No they are not. But every man is both.
We are born sinners.
At the same time we are accountable for our own sins. No one forces us to sin.
We all have a depraved nature. Can you show me one that does not have a depraved nature and is living a sinless life.
You clearly contradict yourself in your answer.
I don't intend to go down this road again, I've beaten it to death...but Scripture is crystal clear we were dead in OUR trespasses and sins, and that death spread to all men due to Adam. This is not one in the same thing. I used to believe as you do as it sounded spiritual, but upon a clear examination of Scripture, Augustinian original sin cannot be supported.
However then you set yourself up (in this position) as some sort of god, having the "power" to determine:
1st what constitutes sin.
2nd at what age it is possible to sin.
3rd who is able to understand to sin.
If one is a sinner at birth, all these questions are solved by God and not man.
God says that even an infant is a sinner. He comes forth from the womb of his mother speaking lies. But you have to rationalize in your position and say: "no this is not possible." You must go by human reasoning and not the Word of God.
Concerning age: From raising children I know that my children, before the age of one, were able to understand me, and understood the consequences of disobeying me, and yet they did. That is sin. You may disagree, and probably will. But sin in the Bible is defined as transgressing the law, and they did. It was a child disobeying his parents law. And that is sin. An infant of less than one year can do that.
One doesn't have to teach a child to lie; but he does have to teach a child to tell the truth. Why is that?
You do not have to be a "god" to understand...
1. The Bible states what sin is
2. There is no across the board cookie cutter age
3. That we cannot crawl into the minds of others.
Hardly, if anything it opens up further questions.
He says no such thing.
You're a riot. I use human reasoning :laugh: I have yet to hear a child "from the womb" speak anything. Your literal approach on a text NOT to be taken literal is the epitome of human reasoning.
One doesn't have to teach a child to walk upright, chew food, form words either. Why is that? This is all part of the human nature, which the sin nature is.
The ad hominem's are getting REAL old, btw.
Last edited by a moderator:
Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--But he does. "They go astray as soon as they be born speaking lies." I don't question God. I believe Him.
One does not have to speak with his voice to deceive.
Hannah spoke in her heart but only her lips moved. Her voice was not heard.
The sin nature is not taught. No one has ever had to teach one to lie. Why is that? We teach our children to walk, and to talk. But not to lie. Why is that? Why do they lie so naturally, and must be taught to tell the truth?
Psalm 51 says from conception...which is it? I'll help you out here...it is poetic language and not literal.
I believe Him too...particularly when He says in numerous places we are dead in OUR trespasses and sins.
Let me guess...you believe like my father does that when a child cries after you have fed, burped and changed them they are "lying". What tripe. Talk about playing God!
Who has argued otherwise? It's called the sin nature.
We don't teach our kids to walk and talk...what are you talking about?!? That comes with time from their minds developing. You might help them up or point to objects and say words, but it is not you who teaches them to walk and talk!
Isolate them in a room. Never talk to them. Don't ever speak to them.
Will they learn how to talk? Will they learn how to communicate without someone else communicating to them? The answer is No. They must learn from others.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: This is an interesting point indeed, as God does create us in His image with capabilities of yes, determining what is sin ‘to a degree.’ Sin is determined by many factors, including what we know to be true and the abilities we possess. What may be sin to one may not be sin to another. I would not coin us as ‘gods’ but we have been given freedom by God to be the sole cause of our moral intents. In that sense we indeed do have the ability to create in the realm of formed intents It is due to this ability that we are justly responsible agents, properly held accountable for our intents and subsequent actions. Why DHK uses this God given truth, although truth only in a limited degree, as a sword against Webdog is beyond my understanding. It is an unjust charge.
HP: Here again DHK is trying to establish a point to refute Webdog’s position that in no wise is true nor does it refute Webdog’s position in the least. No one can tell another at what age they reach the age of accountability. God alone knows and it differs due to many factors. The actual age is unimportant. The fact that there is such an age is the important factor. It is a flat out misrepresentation of anyone I have ever read to claim they know at what specific age sin occurs. The second charge by DHK is totally unfounded and as such unjust.
HP: DHK acts as if though it is wrong to determine “who is able to understand to sin.” Now that sentence is not completely coherent to me, but I would assume DHK is saying that no one is able to understand when one sins. He again says that if one takes Webdogs position that one is setting themselves up as a "god" by doing so.
It is God Himself that grants to man understanding and wisdom and the necessary elements of moral agency which includes a conscience that indeed does testify to us what sin involves and when we violate the principles of love. If DHK has a problem with that well understood fact, he needs to take up that issue with the God that created us and gave us those intuitive natural abilities requisite of moral agency. Again, just as the first two points by DHK, the third point is simply as hollow as the first two.
HP: Now DHK points to his unproven presupposition of original sin as if though if we lay the charge of sin on our Maker, and lay all the absurdities original sin implies at the feet of an Almighty Wise and Just God, that somehow that settles the issues he has raised. That indeed makes for a simplified theology in some ways, but one that will land its followers in a maelstrom of confusion, even as we have witnessed for hundreds of years by those following hard after the system of theology first formed by Augustine and developed by Calvin.
No DHK, the problems will never be solved by laying the absurdities of original sin on our Just and Wise Creator God.
Webdog has it right. :thumbs:
Last edited by a moderator:
The Bible says:
Sin is missing the mark; falling short of God's holiness, God's glory, God's perfection (Romans 2:23)
Sin is any transgression of the law (1John 3:4)
Sin is when one knows to do good and does it not (James 4:17)
Sin is clearly defined by the Bible. How stringently one applies those definitions is up to the individual, especially as it is applicable to parents and children. In today's liberal society which is against discipline, corporal punishment of any kind, sin is pushed in a corner and ignored for the most part.
I remember a child (around the age of one) who had to be taught and disciplined, not to play with the "buttons" on "everything" in the living room (TV, VCR, clock radios, etc.) Anything and everything that had "buttons" fascinated him. That "fascination" had to be dealt with. He needed discipline even at the age of one. He had to be taught that playing with certain things that were out of bounds was "sin." And he learned that fairly quickly. What does the Bible say?
Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
--What is the Hebrew word for "child"?
Strongs says:
Use the rod of correction from the age of infancy to the age of adolescence. Why? Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child.
Sin is sin. See the Bible verses posted above.
If one sets their own standard, rather than accepting God's standard that all have sinned, then we rationalize about sin. HP will readily say that a one year old cannot sin, while DHK affirms that disobedience to his parents was indeed sin. So we have set ourselves up as gods determining for ourselves what is and isn't sin, instead of allowing God to be the Just Judge of all sin, as he has declared all from birth onward sinners. Then we don't have that problem do we? If the child does wrong or sins, but HP doesn't believe it is sin, then wouldn't it be wrong to punish him. This is the liberal thinking of the day, and why there is no discipline any longer today.
The fact is that all are sinners from birth. To hold in one's hand the power to declare one innocent and one a sinner according to a random age is quite arrogant. All are sinners from birth onward. Who made you a judge over all? How do you get to be god and determine who is a sinner (according to age) and who is innocent (according to age). It is amazing that a human can determine that which only God knows.
This is from the child's point of view. If the child is not a sinner from birth, then at what age does he realize what sin is, and at what age does he realize he has become a sinner. This "realization" will have an eternal consequence, so it is an important question. In the mind of HP and Webdog it is very random and there is no set standard; no absolute. But with God, there are absolutes. We can rely on the promises of God. I would rather rely on God and his promises than the philosophy of HP for my salvation, or the salvation of my children.
Before one can get saved he must first understand that he is lost. David understood his lost condition was from his birth onward. He had it right.
The holiness of God vs. the sinfulness of man are not hollow points. They seem to be things that you ignore.
This is your absurd accusation. I never said that.
Even the old English grammar books (McGuffey Readers) said:
"In Adam's fall; we sinned all."
--Our sin is passed on by Adam not God. You believe it is passed on by God? Or someone else said that? You are deceived!!
You are so badly deceived.
1. You know that I have told you I am not a Calvinist. In fact I have refuted many of his teachings on this board.
2. I have never read the teachings of Augustine. Your statements are false accusations, and frankly I tire of the same old, same old, etc.
3. Your accusations in your post above is nothing short of blasphemy, and I should report it to the administration myself, shouldn't I. Why do you accuse God of evil, HP? Why?
Then why have you gone and done that? Not so smart are you?
Your definition may suit a dictionary but I'm not sure it fits Scripture. Let's assume you're correct though; are you saying that the moment a toddler voices his/her first act of defiance against his/her parents, s/he is damned unless s/he accepts the Gospel and repents?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
scriptures implies that we are sinners by nature of our birth. A sinner is a person who turns from God. Sin encompases a whole bunch of things of which rape is one. So, general catagory, we are all sinners. Based on this we are judged based on our position which is one of rejection of God. However, if we've never commited rape we would never be charged with rape. Now the bible says nothing about infants with regard to salvation however, its says a bit about being still sinners or inflicted with the condition of sin even before choice.