Well, this thread was not about me defending my position, actually, but it seems to be turning into that...
First of all to Paul of Eugene, thank you for being brave enough to go out on a limb here, for a limb it is -- but we have been enough rounds together in another area for you to know I can get exasperated but I don't 'fight dirty.' Yes, Jesus may have been one of those calm babies. But the point is, perhaps, there are others, too. My first was one. He rarely cried and when, at fourteen or fifteen months, he slammed his finger in a drawer and literally bent the bone (thank you Lord that little bones bend and don't always break!), all he did was grunt a little! So yes, Jesus, being sinless, may have been a very easy baby, and I have actually always presumed He was.
But crying is not a sin, is it? I am still absolutely helpless in trying to answer the email asking me how Jesus would have been different from other infants where His behavior would have been concerned. And the reason is because I cannot think of a thing a babe in arms does that could ever possibly be construed as a sin! The most I got out of someone before was anger and crying at two in the morning. Neither of those is breaking any law God gave us that I am aware of.
And crying for no known reason? The key word there is 'known.' As with my oldest daughter, it was not until she was 16 and diagnosed with a potentially fatal disorder of the autonomic nervous system that I had a clue as to why she had been such a 'difficult' baby, crying so much of the time. She was in pain.
Now, before I get into any self-defense (and I am enough of a sinner to wish to do that), I would like to present a picture to everyone here. Jesus used pictures taken from nature to explain spiritual truths and there is one that might explain the way I am seeing some of this a little better.
There is a type of pine called a Japanese black pine. They grow crooked, and each one has its own form of crookedness, which is what makes them so interesting. Even with clones, there are not two alike in growth patterns. They are a fascinating species. However, when a Japanese black pine first sprouts from the ground, it does the same thing the ramrod straight lodgepole pine does -- it sends one shoot straight up. The genetic crookedness does not show up until after a little more growth. Then, whereas the lodgepole will continue growing straight up, the J. black will start continue its growth in a variety of contortions and odd manners.
But they both look the same when they sprout up, even though they are genetically different.
This is the way I see Jesus and the rest of the babies. The first bit is straight. But whereas Jesus, not infected with that spiritual genetic mess that we have, continued to grow straight and true, we contorted. We couldn't help it. It is our inborn sin nature.
Now, I think human babies also, having that inborn genetic (please excuse the term, but I am hoping it is understood only as spiritual here as far as I know) sin nature, cannot help but grow crooked as they grow. It's there deep inside and there is no other way to go. This is the same as saying we are all subject to death because of sin. The consequences of death are unavoidable for all sinners and we are all sinners. I'm not arguing that at all.
Anyway, I hope the picture makes what I am trying to discuss a little more clear.
Now, let's get on to some individual responses:
Scott -- yes, I have been slammed. I have been told I need to go back to the basic instruction of the Bible, I have been accused of not paying attention to responses (and I read every one and try to consider it), and here as well have been accused of, if not being actually stupid, of not using my intelligence. So be it. I'll continue in my foolish California blonde way...
You said I was bent on supporting an opinion based on ideas that were not necessarily biblical. What you need to understand is that is exactly how I feel about the Reformed position! For biblical reasons.
And I believe the issue regarding Jesus as a baby was not to say He might have done anything wrong, but that, because He may have been no different at all from other babies, how can other babies be accused of sinning?
Going further along this line, in Matthew 13:53-57, we have a strong indication that the upset of the hometown folk over this Jesus fellow was precisely because He had seemed so normal to them! Just a thought...
Preach the Word
I appreciate that you have credited me with intelligence. Given that opinion from you, perhaps that is a reason you ought to consider what I am trying to say a little more respectfully.
You told Abiyah, "I honestly don't know how a literal creationist can be anything but literal in regards to such a fundamental teaching." But, sir, I am being literal. Jesus said the little ones are His. He said their angels always see the face of the Father. He implied that they must be CAUSED to sin. He said we must be as little children to enter heaven.
Oh, I am taking our Lord VERY literally!
And I am taking Paul literally when he says he was alive before the law came into his life.
And I am taking Peter literally when he says God is not willing that one should perish.
And I am taking God Himself literally when He tells Moses that the person who sins will have his name blotted out of the book. That means it was in the book to begin with...
And I am taking very literally that the wages of sin is death. But death cannot occur unless a person is alive first. A dead thing cannot die further. In addition, a fertilized cell CANNOT SIN, and since life begins at conception, there is at least some time in a person's lifetime when he has a sin nature but has not yet sinned. The argument is not if that is true -- it obviously is -- the argument is the age at which it is no longer true, and the further argument is regarding a possible difference between the age of the first sins and a possibly different age of accountability.
And it is that that I am willing to work through, bit by bit, here on this board. I will endeavor to use some intelligence doing it.
Rev. G.
I know that the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin and was also born without sin are usually attached to one another, but what if they should not be attached? We know being born of a virgin was a matter of prophecy fulfillment. And we know that He had to be sinless in order to redeem us. But I am curious as to whether the two are necessarily connected...
rlvaughn
If I didn't think it was worth bringing up about the babies, I wouldn't have brought it up...
You see, there are too many parents who lose children early in life, or before birth, who agonize over where that child spends eternity. For some, their faith, or at least their ability to walk in that faith, is on the line. Now whether or not anyone wishes to judge these parents 'really saved' or not aside (for that is not our judgment), the fact is that these parents exist. Some of them are reading what we are writing now. And I want them to know, as surely as they are breathing, that their babies are with the Lord, no exceptions, no provisos. He said the little ones are His. He meant it. So it is important for the faith of some, and perhaps many, to bring this up.
Your second point was well-taken. I have been making two arguments, actually, and should have clearly delineated which was which:
1. I do not believe tiny babies sin. Sin is defined by the law and relates to actions (ref. the Ten Commandments) even though its roots are in the heart. Little babies are not capable of the actions which break any law God has given us.
2. BUT, if, for some reason and in some way I do not see, they do actually sin, their sins are as completely covered by Jesus as mine are, so either way these infants are not separated from God, or not yet spiritually dead.
Hope that clears it up a bit.
Abiyah, you asked a very interesting question there. I am curious as to whether it will be answered or not.
[ October 22, 2002, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
