• 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!

Spiritually dead, yet not guilty?

Allan

Active Member
I believe an argument can be made that infants and small children who die are not guilty of sin and need no repentance. Look what Jesus said in Luke 15.

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Who are these just persons who need no repentance?

Luk 15:25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Who is this elder son who never transgressed at any time the father's commandments?

And note that the father did not correct the elder son, but in fact confirmed what the elder son had said. He called him "Son", and said "thou art EVER with me". So, this son in reality never sinned and was never separated from his father by sin.

I could be wrong, but I believe the 99 righteous that do not need repentance, and the elder son who never at any time transgressed his father's commandments could be infants and small children who died before they reached the age of accountability.

I can think of no other persons whom this could be.

But note that no great celebration is made for the 99 who needed no repentance, nor the elder brother who never transgressed at any time his father's commandment, but great celebration is made over the one lost sheep recovered and over the prodigal son when he repented and was made alive AGAIN.
just a thought for ya Win.

His brother WAS in sin Win. He was selfish, jealous of his brothers attention. It is apparent his pride was hurt as he confronted his father for not praising him and parading him around as well. The only thing the elder son did not do was leave to do his own thing. Yet what we see from the elder brother and the Father is one of a distorted understanding regarding their relationship from the son's standpoint. The elder was looking at his relationship based on works when in fact it is based on grace.
 

Allan

Active Member
2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Yes.. this shows quite plainly that the separation which we have is due in fact to our nature.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree with much of what Skan posted above, with a small exception (to a degree)... as to when do we know we are sinning.

I believe scripture is very clear on this issue and that while we might not know when we 'have' sinned (as in looking back) we 'will' know when we do it.

Sinning is a cognitive choice just as faith is. Thus in order to make it one must understand what they are doing, and act toward or against that knowledge.

Sinning isn't just doing something wrong but understanding what you are doing and against whom you have acted. Sin is an act against God's commands, thus in order for it to be sin, they must know what it is and make the decision to act contrary to it, and against the one who established that law or rule.

This was Jesus point in John 9:41

as well as in John 15:22

Thus we note from Christ himself that we are not culpable for sin if we have no knowledge of it. But once we do we are held guilty.

In addition to help clarify a bit more on the issue of being separated.
The term 'dead' in scripture when relating to spiritual things always means 'separated. For example - Jesus is Life.. and thus to be 'dead' is to be separated or not in Union with Him which IS Life, or what is most often called being a 'child or son of God'. Paul's usage of 'adoption' solidifies this as in order to be adopted, you were never one with or a part of the new family in question. And since adoption was not even a Jewish a aspect done in their culture but the Romans, we get our understanding from their renderings on it. Interestingly enough under Roman Law if one was adopted they could not separate themselves from the family and it law that they were given full rights as if they natural born, and in fact, a natural born could have their rights stripped from them but an adopted child could not. You were family no matter what and could not be legally removed once adoption had been made.

Thus one can and is separated from God by or better because of our nature, but that does not necessitate them being held guilty for sin. Being bent toward sin does not negate the fact that judicially, one must understand that what they have done -is sin- in order for them to be culpable. As John McArthur has stated we can not find anywhere in scripture that man is judged by or for his sin nature.


Hello Alan,

how are you....these verses are instructive on this issue.


Leviticus 5:17 "If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible

22And if ye have erred, and not observed all these commandments, which the LORD hath spoken unto Moses,

23Even all that the LORD hath commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day that the LORD commanded Moses, and henceforward among your generations;

24Then it shall be, if ought be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour unto the LORD, with his meat offering, and his drink offering, according to the manner, and one kid of the goats for a sin offering.

25And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their ignorance:

I agree with your point in jn9...about clearly known and clear sin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Allan

Active Member
Hello Alan,

how are you....these verses are instructive on this issue.
I am well, thank you. How are you doing?


Actually it proves my point.. here it is the ESV
Lev 5:17 "If anyone sins, doing any of the things that by the LORD's commandments ought not to be done, though he did not know it, then realizes his guilt, he shall bear his iniquity.
This is regarding a person BRINGING a sacrifice for his sin. In order to do this one must know they have sinned and the very passage you quote first proves this very point. At the time they didn't know but now that they do, they are guilty and bear the burden of it.

The last one you quote is the same but in a general sense. It regards the congregation of Israel not a person.

Jesus was specific and stated quite plainly that if they did not know they are not guilty, but now that they do know.. they are guilty
 
Last edited by a moderator:

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Yes.. this shows quite plainly that the separation which we have is due in fact to our nature.

Note the context immediately following "even as the others". Paul is addressing the fact Jews thought they had a free pass due to their identity and he was driving home the fact they were as bad off as the Gentiles (the others). It doesn't say one is a sinner according to his nature.
It can also be viewed that the flesh is an enmity with God, but one is not guilty or accountible for having flesh.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Note the context immediately following "even as the others". Paul is addressing the fact Jews thought they had a free pass due to their identity and he was driving home the fact they were as bad off as the Gentiles (the others). It doesn't say one is a sinner according to his nature.
It can also be viewed that the flesh is an enmity with God, but one is not guilty or accountible for having flesh.

wrong....
11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
.......you are suggesting novelties....no one but you reads into the verses what you are doing
 

Allan

Active Member
Note the context immediately following "even as the others". Paul is addressing the fact Jews thought they had a free pass due to their identity and he was driving home the fact they were as bad off as the Gentiles (the others). It doesn't say one is a sinner according to his nature.
It can also be viewed that the flesh is an enmity with God, but one is not guilty or accountible for having flesh.
The context is establishing that ALL (inclusive), not just the Jews, are by nature children of wrath.

Also please show anywhere in any of my posts that I state the sin nature is the same as being a sinner. In fact my previous posts state EXPLICITLY the sin nature does not make one guilty. Just because we are by our very nature WILL have us to sin willingly, does not make us guilty because we will one day do it.
Lastly, it is our nature that is in opposition with God not 'just' our flesh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jedi Knight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The context is establishing that ALL (inclusive), not just the Jews, are by nature children of wrath.

Also please show anywhere in all my posts (ever) that I state the sin nature is the same as being a sinner. In fact my previous post state EXPLICITLY the sin nature does not make one guilty.
Lastly, it is our nature that is in opposition with God not 'just' our flesh.

Well I think......Hey Brother Allan! :smilewinkgrin:
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The context is establishing that ALL (inclusive), not just the Jews, are by nature children of wrath.

Also please show anywhere in any of my posts that I state the sin nature is the same as being a sinner. In fact my previous posts state EXPLICITLY the sin nature does not make one guilty. Just because we are by our very nature WILL have us to sin willingly, does not make us guilty because we will one day do it.
Lastly, it is our nature that is in opposition with God not 'just' our flesh.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
 

Allan

Active Member
Off topic... but - I leave for a couple of months and I swear none of the topics have changed, the people arguing them seem to still be in same arena, and none has moved much closer to ... well... much of anything :laugh:
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am well, thank you. How are you doing?


Actually it proves my point.. here it is the ESV

This is regarding a person BRINGING a sacrifice for his sin. In order to do this one must know they have sinned and the very passage you quote first proves this very point. At the time they didn't know but now that they do, they are guilty and bear the burden of it.

The last one you quote is the same but in a general sense. It regards the congregation of Israel not a person.

Jesus was specific and stated quite plainly that if they did not know they are not guilty, but now that they do know.. they are guilty

That would change it somewhat if accurate,,,, here are the other versions;
17 “Now if a person sins and does any of the things [k]which the LORD has commanded not to be done, though he was unaware, still he is guilty and shall bear his punishment

17`And when any person sinneth, and hath done [something against] one of all the commands of Jehovah [regarding things] which are not to be done, and hath not known, and he hath been guilty, and hath borne his iniquity,

17`And when any person sinneth, and hath done [something against] one of all the commands of Jehovah [regarding things] which are not to be done, and hath not known, and he hath been guilty, and hath borne his iniquity,
Barnes:
The presumptuous sinner, literally he who sinned "with a high hand," might or might not have committed such a crime as to incur punishment from the civil law: it was enough that he had with deliberate purpose rebelled against God (see Proverbs 2:13-15), and ipso facto was "cut off from among his people" and alienated from the divine covenant (see Leviticus 7:20; Exodus 31:14; compare Matthew 12:31; 1 John 5:16). But the other kind of sin, that for which the sin-offering was appointed, was of a more complicated nature. It appears to have included the entire range of "sins, negligences and ignorances" for which we are accustomed to ask forgiveness. sin-offerings were required not only when the conscience accused the offender of having yielded to temptation, but sometimes for what were breaches of the Law committed strictly in ignorance Leviticus 4:13, Leviticus 4:23, Leviticus 4:28; Leviticus 5:17, and sometimes on account of ceremonial pollution. They are thus to be regarded as protests against everything which is opposed to the holiness and purity of the divine Law. They were, in short, to be offered by the worshipper as a relief to the conscience whenever he felt the need of atonement.


Clarke...supports the view offered by the esv,,which you have put forth,
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
If a soul shall sin through ignorance - That is, if any man shall do what God has forbidden, or leave undone what God has commanded, through ignorance of the law relative to these points; as soon as the transgression or omission comes to his knowledge, he shall offer the sacrifice here prescribed, and shall not suppose that his ignorance is an excuse for his sin. He who, when his iniquity comes to his knowledge, refuses to offer such a sacrifice, sins obstinately and wilfully, and to him there remains no other sacrifice for sin - no other mode by which he can be reconciled to God, but he has a certain fearful looking for of judgment - which shall devour such adversaries; and this seems the case to which the apostle alludes, Hebrews 10:26, etc., in the words above quoted. There have been a great number of subtle questions started on this subject, both by Jews and Christians, but the above I believe to be the sense and spirit of the law.

here is Gill;
if a soul should sin through ignorance; sin is from the soul, though committed by the body; it is the soul that sins, Ezekiel 18:4 it includes, as Aben Ezra observes, both Israelites and proselytes; who sinned through ignorance either of the law, that such things were forbidden, or of having committed them, they being done unobserved, and through inadvertency; or were forgotten that they were done, or were done through error and mistake; these sins are what the apostle calls the errors of the people, their strayings out of the way through ignorance and inadvertency, Hebrews 5:2 such sins as a man is overtaken with unawares, and is drawn into at once through temptation and the prevalence of corruption; these are the errors and secret faults which David distinguishes from presumptuous sins, Psalm 19:12,

Allan, i did not realize this section or sections were in question prior to this, thanks for the heads up....I will have to work on these passages.some more, thanks, for the offered correction:thumbs::thumbs:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Off topic... but - I leave for a couple of months and I swear none of the topics have changed, the people arguing them seem to still be in same arena, and none has moved much closer to ... well... much of anything :laugh:

We have be:wavey:en waiting for you to return ,and show us some direction:laugh: Some have learned and offered some good teaching, but many are fixed and have not moved too much:thumbs:
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
wrong....
.......you are suggesting novelties....no one but you reads into the verses what you are doing

I see...so when Paul shifts his focus back onto the jewish believers (as was the case before his break in the middle of chapter 2 through 3) in chapter 4 we should still read it as Paul addressing gentiles :rolleyes:
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I see...so when Paul shifts his focus back onto the jewish believers (as was the case before his break in the middle of chapter 2 through 3) in chapter 4 we should still read it as Paul addressing gentiles :rolleyes:

WD,
He switches back...after he has shown that we are now ONE new man in chapter2.....Gentiles are no longer alienanted....then he is addressing all men
WD.....re -read it without any distinction and see what you see then....

just read it about the issue at hand...not so much about jew/gentile differences

He is addressing gentiles...getting them up to speed so to speak...jews had the Ot...and should have known much of this would take place.
 

Winman

Active Member
just a thought for ya Win.

His brother WAS in sin Win. He was selfish, jealous of his brothers attention. It is apparent his pride was hurt as he confronted his father for not praising him and parading him around as well. The only thing the elder son did not do was leave to do his own thing. Yet what we see from the elder brother and the Father is one of a distorted understanding regarding their relationship from the son's standpoint. The elder was looking at his relationship based on works when in fact it is based on grace.

I would agree with you except the father did not correct the son, but actually verified what the elder son said to be true. First, he called him "Son", so this is not a lost person. Second, he said "thou art EVER with me". This son had always been with God and would always be with God.

Who could this possibly be? And who are the 99 righteous persons Jesus said need no repentance? The only persons I can think of would be infants and small children not guilty of sin.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Had Esau and Jacob transgressed against God when they were in their mother's womb? NO. And if they had died at this point, they would have never transgressed God's commandments.

There have been literally billions of children who have died before birth, or died in early infancy. I believe this could be the 99 righteous persons who need no repentance.

That said, Paul also said Esau and Jacob had done no good. They had no righteousness, and therefore are still dependant to have righteousness imputed to them.

Well, you will say they had no faith, so righteousness could not be imputed to them. I don't know if this is true. Jesus said little children had faith.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Jesus picked up a little child and set him in the midst of the disciples, so this must have been a very young child, maybe 3-5 years old. But Jesus said this child "believes in me". We may not understand it, but perhaps infants and little children do have faith.

I know my view is unorthodox, that does not concern me at all, I want to know what scriptures say and teach, not men.

The only persons I can see who could be righteous and not need repentance are little infants and children who died before they reached the age of accountability.

I believe Paul shows that men are spiritually alive until they know and understand the law, at this point they become accountable and spritually die when they willingly and knowingly break God's commandments.

Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Sin has no power without the law. A man has to know and understand the law before sin has dominion over him.

Paul said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. Paul did not say he "mistakenly believed" he was alive once, that is adding to scripture what it does not say. Paul simply and directly said he was "alive without the law once".

When could this be? The law was around 1500 years before Paul was born. The only time Paul could have been without law was when he was a child and did not know good from evil yet.

Isa 7: 16 Forbefore the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Isaiah here speaks of a time when a child does not yet know to refuse evil and choose good.

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

God himself speaks of children who had no knowledge between good and evil. God did not punish these children, they were allowed to enter the promised land. All the parents who understood between good and evil died in the wilderness.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Peter said believers were as sheep going astray, but are now RETURNED to Jesus. How can you return to Jesus if you were born separated from God?

When I put all of these many scriptures together I believe the scriptures teach that children are not accounted as sinners, and are not separated from God. But the moment a child understands good from evil and willingly sins against God they spiritually die and become separated from God.

This would explain the 99 just persons who need no repentance, and the elder son who never transgressed against his father.

This is what I believe the scriptures show.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On a now close thread a poster stated one can be born spiritually dead, separated from God...yet not guilty, and also be spiritually dead without being a sinner.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss how this is possible, it is NOT do defend or refute Augustinianism. I'm curious how these concepts can both be supported from Scripture. The moment Adam violated God's law he was guilty, a sinner and spiritually separated.

One can not be spiritually dead w/o condemnation. If one is spiritually dead, they are guilty. Furthermore, one can not be spiritually dead, and NOT a sinner. That is biblically impossible.


As far as for Adam, he died spiritually(plus the sentence of death was placed upon him and all flesh), and yet, God communicated with him. Cain was spiritually dead, and yet God spoke to him. The rich man in hell was spiritually dead(of course), and he spoke with Father Abraham. All of these were under condemnation, were under guilt, and seperated from God(spiritual death), and yet they understood everything that God said.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Scripture specifically states this point without question or reservation:
Rom 3:25 - whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

The propitiation regards eternal salvation and that is received by faith.
For it is by grace you are saved through faith...

I reiterate, our faith no more 'applies' the blood of Christ than the faith of the firstborn applied the blood of the passover lamb. We absolutely do not 'will' the blood of Christ to work for us. Period. The faith of the Hebrews had zilch to do with their redemption from the house of bondage, but their faith had everything to do with entering into the promised land of milk and honey, i.e. the BENEFITS of that redemption. And you're the one inserting/forcing eternal consequences into the passage.

As usual (I see you haven't changed any either) you have the cart before the horse, you have cause and effect reversed:

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1

21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God. Jn 3

Those that receive Him, those that come to Christ, have already been born from above, God has already wrought within them, i.e. the blood of Christ has already been applied.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Would you mind providing these 'dozens' of passages that show one's personal faith (or lack of) determines one's eternal destiny?

Concerning the passage in Jn 12:

39 For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I should heal them.
Yes, and THAT is the reason the Jews of His day weren't able to come to Christ while he was here on earth. They were being temporarily blinded in their rebellion, but "the Gentiles will listen." (Acts 28:28)

Its not because its a fallen condition from birth for every person, as Calvinism suggests and the passage you quoted above proves that. Why harden and blind a people who were born totally hard and blinded?

In Jn 8 there were those that could not believe because they were not of God, in Jn 10 there were those that could not believe because they were not His sheep.
Meaning they were not of the remnant from Israel set aside to bring the message of redemption to the world. They were being hardened in their rebellion. There is another fold of sheep which will be brought in through faith in their message.

As to the passages you requested: Read through this thread, as they were listed there...
 
Top