What is Sin?

[Jerry Shugart]

What Paul is saying here is that even before he realized that he had sin, he had sin.

To be more precise Paul is saying that before he realized that he had sinned he had sinned:

"Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died" (Ro.7:7-9).

Of course when Paul said he "died" he was referring to spiritual death because he was still alive physically when he wrote those words. He knew that he died spiritually when he coveted even though at that time he did not even know that it was a sin.

From this we can know that Paul was not born spiritually dead because a person must be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually as a result of sinning. Paul, as well as you and I, are born spiritually alive.

 

[glfredrick]

To be more precise Paul is saying that before he realized that he had sinned he had sinned:

"Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died" (Ro.7:7-9).

Of course when Paul said he "died" he was referring to spiritual death because he was still alive physically when he wrote those words. He knew that he died spiritually when he coveted even though at that time he did not even know that it was a sin.

From this we can know that Paul was not born spiritually dead because a person must be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually as a result of sinning. Paul, as well as you and I, are born spiritually alive.

That is false for any number of reasons, but we've had that discussion on the board and that is not the topic of this thread. If, however, it were true, I dare you to start killing newborns and sending them to heaven before they have a chance to start sinning... (God forbid!) :BangHead:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

One more quick thought. One can denote something or refer to something in ones past, antecedent to knowledge sin, yet that, as again seen and denoted as sin IN RETROSPECT, does not necessarily mean God views such as actual sin. Just as God declared Job a perfect man, who loved God and eskewed evil, Job IN RETROSECT after hearing directly from God 'viewed himself' as a horrible sinner.

Paul said that he had lived in all good conscious until that day. it was not until God revealed Himself to Paul that Paul saw his actions as sinful. I for one believe that the apostle Paul did what he was doing to believers, antecedent to his salvation experience, in complete ignorance. Paul even testified to that being the reason God used him as He did.

1Ti 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.


Still, Paul IN RETRSPECT, speaking of his former actions, indeed saw himself as not only a sinner, but the 'chief of sinners.' I would believe, that apart from God's revelation to Paul, no sin up until that point was actually held against him. IF he would have continued in his course of actions, SUBSEQUENT to receiving light, he would have indeed been charged by God with sin. Believe as one wills, that is still is to me a viable and reasonable position to assume. I certainly would allow latitude for any and all to take exception with that view if they so choose because God did not make a formal proclamation of the state of Paul before his conversion as he did with say, Job before being tested. Paul's life was indeed one of unusual characteristics, and in no way the norm. I know of no other man than can say that they were not convicted of sin in their lives before God shed salvations light upon them. Paul was certainly an exception to the rule in many respects. Who, other than Paul could say, "Act 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
Act 23:2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That is false for any number of reasons, but we've had that discussion on the board and that is not the topic of this thread. If, however, it were true, I dare you to start killing newborns and sending them to heaven before they have a chance to start sinning... (God forbid!)

You say that what I said is false for a number of reasons but yet you do not give even one reason. Of course if you actually had a reason you would indeed state that reason.

Instead you find an excuse so you can aviod dealing with what Paul said.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Glfredrick: That is false for any number of reasons, but we've had that discussion on the board and that is not the topic of this thread. If, however, it were true, I dare you to start killing newborns and sending them to heaven before they have a chance to start sinning... (God forbid!)

HP: How can a reasonable person even suggest such a thing as you suggest glfredrick? There is not even a shred of logic to that statement. If I were you, I would edit your last post and delete the part about killing innocent life. Such does not logically follow from anything Jerry has posted or suggested.

 

[glfredrick]

HP: How can a reasonable person even suggest such a thing as you suggest glfredrick? There is not even a shred of logic to that statement. If I were you, I would edit your last post and delete the part about killing innocent life. Such does not logically follow from anything Jerry has posted or suggested.

First, yes it does proceed logically from what Jerry posted. IF as both of you are suggesting, our sinful state comes upon us at some point when we KNOW we are sinning, then it would be the best of all possible outcomes to send persons directly to heaven before they could ever sin.

Of course, you both know in your hearts and from the testimony of Scripture that the logical outcome of your position is untenable. You should also know that I in no way ACTUALLY advocate the slaughter of children for ANY reason, even if your position were correct and we would be sending them to heaven for certain. Any concept of slaughter of children is a reprehensible action, yet you both promulgate a theological stance that indicates that doing so would be in the best interest of a sinless person -- after all, let's get them before they begin sinning, right?

As to the many reasons for which you both take me to task, I would be happy to deal with that in a thread devoted to that purpose. I'm not wanting to derail this one with that train of thought. If you'll do a quick search, you will discover that I'm not one to run from a debate, nor am I some unreasoned, uneducated bloke that just tosses out invectives for the sake of seeing people squirm.

In particular, I was responding to the point that Jerry made when he stated that Paul was not spiritually dead before he realized that he was spiritually dead. That one is a non-player from the start because we are all "spiritually dead" from birth unless or until we are regenerated by the power that only Christ carries.

You might recognize this passage from the pen of Paul:

Ephes. 2:1-3 (ESV)
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins [2] in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— [3] among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

In particular, I was responding to the point that Jerry made when he stated that Paul was not spiritually dead before he realized that he was spiritually dead.

I never said that. You cannot even understand my argument so it does not surprise me when you say that you do not agree with what I said.

I will repeat what I said and perhaps this time you will actually respond to what I say instead of misrepresenting me:

Paul is saying that before he realized that he had sinned he had sinned:

"Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died" (Ro.7:7-9).

Of course when Paul said he "died" he was referring to spiritual death because he was still alive physically when he wrote those words. He knew that he died spiritually when he coveted even though at that time he did not even know that it was a sin.

From this we can know that Paul was not born spiritually dead because a person must be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually as a result of sinning. Paul, as well as you and I, are born spiritually alive.

In fact, he said that he was "alive" once but when the commandment came then he died.

Ephes. 2:1-3 (ESV)
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins [2] in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— [3] among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

This verse says nothing about "when" anyone became children of wrath. A person does not become a child of wrath until he dies spiritually and it is it not until a person sins when that happens:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ro.623).

Paul states in no uncertain terms that the unsaved are dead in their own sins:

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses" (Col.2:13).

A person cannot become dead spiritually as a result of his own sin unless he is first alive spiritually. So common sense dictates that a person is not born in a state of spiritual death.

 

[glfredrick]

I never said that. You cannot even understand my argument so it does not surprise me when you say that you do not agree with what I said.

I will repeat what I said and perhaps this time you will actually respond to what I say instead of misrepresenting me:

Paul is saying that before he realized that he had sinned he had sinned:

"Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died" (Ro.7:7-9).

Of course when Paul said he "died" he was referring to spiritual death because he was still alive physically when he wrote those words. He knew that he died spiritually when he coveted even though at that time he did not even know that it was a sin.

From this we can know that Paul was not born spiritually dead because a person must be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually as a result of sinning. Paul, as well as you and I, are born spiritually alive.

In fact, he said that he was "alive" once but when the commandment came then he died.

This verse says nothing about "when" anyone became children of wrath. A person does not become a child of wrath until he dies spiritually and it is it not until a person sins when that happens:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ro.623).

Paul states in no uncertain terms that the unsaved are dead in their own sins:

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses" (Col.2:13).

A person cannot become dead spiritually as a result of his own sin unless he is first alive spiritually. So common sense dictates that a person is not born in a state of spiritual death.

I believe that I understood very well what you wrote and you just recapitulated it again if I were in doubt.

You are attempting to apply "logic" to something that "revelation" says otherwise. Paul's remarks concerning the effects of the Law on the sin nature do not mean in any way that he was born in some other state than spiritually dead. Otherwise, he could not have written what he did in the Ephesians passage that I cited.

While logic is a great tool and one of the evidences that we were created imago Dei, it is not the end of the argument for believers, for there are times when our frame of reference does not allow for pure logic to work -- especially when it gets in the way of more sure revelation. While we can certainly apply logic to revelation, we dare not do so in a manner that exceeds what has been revealed to us by God, and I believe that your attempt to make Paul spiritually alive before he came to realize his sin is just that.

Another of Paul's words on the subject:

1 Cor. 15:22 (ESV)
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I believe that I understood very well what you wrote and you just recapitulated it again if I were in doubt.

Tell me where I ever said what you say I said (in "bold"):

In particular, I was responding to the point that Jerry made when he stated that Paul was not spiritually dead before he realized that he was spiritually dead.

I never said that so the words of mine which you quoted will be searched in vain for those words or even that idea!

You are attempting to apply "logic" to something that "revelation" says otherwise. Paul's remarks concerning the effects of the Law on the sin nature do not mean in any way that he was born in some other state than spiritually dead. Otherwise, he could not have written what he did in the Ephesians passage that I cited.

In order to believe what you say we must trow our reason to the wind and that is why you insist that I am wrong for applying "logic" to my interpretation of Paul's words.

Paul is not speaking of the effects of the Law on the "sin nature" because the effects of which he speaks is on him when he was "alive":

"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death" (Ro.7:9-10).

While logic is a great tool and one of the evidences that we were created imago Dei, it is not the end of the argument for believers, for there are times when our frame of reference does not allow for pure logic to work -- especially when it gets in the way of more sure revelation.

Let us look at some more verses on this subject and these verses cannot be described as something that is not a "sure revelation":

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life...the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones" (2 Cor.3:6-8).

Paul describes the Ten Commandments as being "the ministration of death"--"written and engraved in stone."

In the following verses Paul explains how the one of those commandments slew him:

"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" (Ro.7:9-11).

Of course the contrast which Paul made at 2 Corinthians 3:6-8 is between that which brings "spiritual" life versus that which brings "spiritual" death:

"...for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

Since none of this fits your theology you want us to abandon out logic and follow your teachings which are a denial of what Paul taught. If Paul's words at Romans 7:9-10 are not saying what I say what I say they are then they must have another meaning.

Please give me your interpretation of the meaning of Paul's words in those verses.

1 Cor. 15:22 (ESV)
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Once a person sins he must do something to be made alive in Christ and that thing is to believe the gospel.

Once a person is born he must do something to be identified with Adam and to die and that thing is to sin:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ro.623).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: How can a reasonable person even suggest such a thing as you suggest glfredrick? There is not even a shred of logic to that statement. If I were you, I would edit your last post and delete the part about killing innocent life. Such does not logically follow from anything Jerry has posted or suggested.

Glfredrick: First, yes it does proceed logically from what Jerry posted. IF as both of you are suggesting, our sinful state comes upon us at some point when we KNOW we are sinning, then it would be the best of all possible outcomes to send persons directly to heaven before they could ever sin.

HP: What utter nonsense. Your logic goes: it would be better to commit sin, to murder innocent babies and to cheat them out of life itself, to stop sin. That is your logic.
GL, sinning (by committing murder) will never stop sin or make for a better universe. Your logic is skewed to the core. Your illustration falls flat to the ground.

GL: Of course, you both know in your hearts and from the testimony of Scripture that the logical outcome of your position is untenable.

HP: I beg your pardon? You think I would waste my time with something I knew was against the testimony of Scripture? You think I am just willingly kicking against the pricks? I think not.
What I do not understand is your concern for logical outcomes period. When one reasons with you, here is your response.

Glfredrick: While logic is a great tool and one of the evidences that we were created imago Dei, it is not the end of the argument for believers, for there are times when our frame of reference does not allow for pure logic to work -- especially when it gets in the way of more sure revelation. While we can certainly apply logic to revelation, we dare not do so in a manner that exceeds what has been revealed to us by God, and I believe that your attempt to make Paul spiritually alive before he came to realize his sin is just that.

HP: So logic to you is a tool to wield if it is convenient, but if it goes against a preconceived notion driving your interpretation it is of no use and cannot be trusted.
Gods Word is of no private interpretation and our so-called interpretations are always in need of being tested, yes by God given abilities of utilizing logic. If you want to see a notion that exceeds both logic and the revealed Word of God, look no further than the false philosophical notion introduced into the church by Augustine, known the world over as the doctrine of original sin. Now that my friend is at antipodes with logic and Scriptural revelation.

Glfredrick: You should also know that I in no way ACTUALLY advocate the slaughter of children for ANY reason, even if your position were correct and we would be sending them to heaven for certain. Any concept of slaughter of children is a reprehensible action, yet you both promulgate a theological stance that indicates that doing so would be in the best interest of a sinless person -- after all, let's get them before they begin sinning, right?

HP: If all babies are sinful from birth, one might justly conclude that they deserve to be slaughtered. Think about that.
Your remarks are beyond the pale of reason for the reasons I mentioned above. Why even suggest such a thing??

Glfrederick: As to the many reasons for which you both take me to task, I would be happy to deal with that in a thread devoted to that purpose. I'm not wanting to derail this one with that train of thought. If you'll do a quick search, you will discover that I'm not one to run from a debate, nor am I some unreasoned, uneducated bloke that just tosses out invectives for the sake of seeing people squirm.

HP: I like that. I like one that will hang in there for what they believe. Tell me GL, how would this sound to you as serious debate material....if I said, GL, you know down deep in your heart that the position of original sin is wrong, so why are you so dead set on promulgating such a reprehensible notion? Since you believe they ar born sinners, why not just send them all to hell so they get what they deserve before they hava a chance to hurt someone else?

Such reasoning just doesn't serve a very meaningful place in reasonable debate does it? How about being the first one to take our discussions to a slightly more reasonable realm? :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

God is no taskmaster. If it is sin, it always involves voluntary disobedience to a known commandment of God. No knowledge? No sin. James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Now glfredrick, where is your Scripture that states that God will hold you accountable for things you honestly have no knowledge of?

Glfredrick: Romans 7:13 (ESV)
Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

HP: What we are supposed to be looking for is Scripture that states that God holds man accountable where there is n knowledge of sin. Where does this verse do any such thing?

Glfredrick: What Paul is saying here is that even before he realized that he had sin, he had sin.

HP: Still yet I would offer that in reality it was not accounted to him as sin until he received light through the commandment. Certainly once he received light, and in retrospect saw his former actions, he NOW viewed them as sin. That still does not show where God held him accountable for something he did not know. Accountability comes when sin is understood, not before. "To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin."

Glfredrick: My point is that no human from a self-centered vantage point will EVER know all of their sins, for we sin by omission and commission. We sin by neglect and by choice. We sin when we do not intend to sin and we sin when we wish to sin.

HP: No man views himself from only a self-centered vantage point. At some point in time the conscience of man indeed convicts everyman, heathen or not. Romans tells us that the heathen are not without excuse. Why? Because God holds them accountable for what they have no knowledge of? No way. They are guilty as sinners for violation of what they DO know, as primitive as that might be.

Sin is at its heart, intentional. Sin is blameworthy, and eternally so. To indicate that a Just God would hold man accountable for matters completely unintentional, is paramount to saying that God will hold a man accountable for the color of their hair or the color of their skin. You have produced nothing to suggest that God holds man eternally accountable for things beyond one direct willful control.

You suggest that men sin when they do not intend or want to sin. Moral law reigns over the strict intentions of man. Without willful intent it may be an accident, or unavoidable fate, but it certainly is not moral in nature, deserving of moral punishment. What just man would even think of holding another eternally accountable for something they honestly had no intention of doing or that was in reality unavoidable in nature? The cry goes up from even mere children, I did not mean to! They instinctively know that if they could not have done anything other than what they do under the very same set of circumstances, no just blame can be predicated. Are we to believe that the God of the Universe holds man accountable when there was honestly no formed intent to violate His law towards man or Himself, at direct antipodes to the very sense of justice He instills in even children? I think not.

Being just means something, something that we instinctively via conscience have an understanding of. We can be as certain of the validity of such intuitive knowledge being in accordance to truth, that to cavil at, or dismiss it, or show a Just God, (by ones interpretation of Scriprture or otherwise,) in violation of it, is akin to believing something can be and not be in the same sense at the same time. Believe that if you will, but I cannot. God intuitive reason will not allow my mind to believe that something can be and cannot be in the same sense at the same time. Neither will a Just God act in direct antipodes to the immutable truths of justice instilled within the hearts of all sentient moral creatures. If there are no absolute moral principles regarding morality in the form of immutable truths of justice, there can be no comprehension at all of a Just God of morality in the least. Righteousness could be wickedness and wickedness could be righteousness apart form those immutable truths.

Of a first truth of reason, instilled within our hearts by God, if man can do nothing other than what he does under the same set of circumstances, no choice is involved. If no choice exists, no morality, no just moral blame or praise can be predicated whatsoever. No Divine revelation of Scripture contradicts that Divine revelation of such a universal absolute moral principle.

If you believe for a minute that Divine revelation in Scripture can violate Divine revelation of first truths of reason and immutable truth of justice, you are sadly mistaken as to what you are denoting as Divine revelation. If that was the case there would be no possibility of absolute morals or moral understanding period.

 

[glfredrick]

Nice try, and a lot of words to say something that the text does not.

I rest my case, for the Scriptures say that "all have sinned" and that means, well, all. Infant just born, old man, priest, prophet, lost person, saved person, man, woman. All.

If we can exclude one set of humanity away from that "all" then by all means we certainly should do so, right? And, we should also make sure that they gain heaven as rapidly as possible before they do sin, thus they would not need to avail themselves of the blood of Christ, right?

Does the newborn infant, or even the infant in the womb need Christ? No long winded explanations needed, just answer yes or no.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If, however, it were true, I dare you to start killing newborns and sending them to heaven before they have a chance to start sinning...

How about instead of that we follow the Lord's teaching here?:

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Pvb. 22:6).

I rest my case, for the Scriptures say that "all have sinned" and that means, well, all. Infant just born, old man, priest, prophet, lost person, saved person, man, woman. All.

So a new born infant has sinned? If new born infants are children of wrath then why would the Lord Jesus say the following about them?:

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.19:13-14).

Are we to believe that the Lord believed that infants are "children of wrath" but yet He would say of them that "such is the kingdom of heaven"? Of course not! Children are described as being "an heritage of the Lord":

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps.127:3).

Why would the following verse speak of a baby being "wonderfully made" if that same baby was spiritually dead coming out of the womb?:

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

glfredrick: Does the newborn infant, or even the infant in the womb need Christ? No long winded explanations needed, just answer yes or no.

HP: Need Christ for what?

Take the word 'all' out to its illogical end if you so desire, including infants against all reason and sound judgment, but when you do, you are dooming them without hope unless they repent, according to Scripture that is.
Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Take the word 'all' out to its illogical ends, and include infants, but in doing so you are dooming them to a devils hell apart from them exercising faith.
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


PS: You chide me if I do not address your posts in the manner you desire, and you chide me for being long winded when I try my best to give a thoughtful and in depth response. You are certainly a hard one to please.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

PS: You chide me if I do not address your posts in the manner you desire, and you chide me for being long winded when I try my best to give a thoughtful and in depth response. You are certainly a hard one to please.

He criticizes you for not responding in a way which he desires to the points which he makes while he completely ignores my request which I made to him here:

If Paul's words at Romans 7:9-10 are not saying what I say then they must have another meaning.

Please give me your interpretation of the meaning of Paul's words in those verses.

He obviously has a double standard. One for us and an entirely different one for himself!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

And a fine Lord's day to you Jerry!

Your posts have certainly been an occasion of hope and encouragement to me. :thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

To be more precise Paul is saying that before he realized that he had sinned he had sinned:

"Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died" (Ro.7:7-9).

First, the context for this statement is whether or not the law can either justify or sanctify a person. In Romans 7:1-5 Paul claims that the child of God is dead to the law through the body of Christ. So his short answer is no, the law cannot do either.

In Romans 7:6-13 he proves the proper function of the law is to REVEAL the true condition of a man rather than provide life and the problem is not in the law but in man.

Now, note how he opens verse 7 "Nay, I had not KNOWN sin but by the law." The purpose of the law is to reveal to man what he DOES NOT KNOW! There as a time that Paul did not KNOW he was a sinner. That does not mean he wa not a sinner but he merely didn't KNOW he was a sinner.

If you do not perceive yourself as a sinner than what is your perception of yourself? There are many religious people, full adults, who do not know they are sinners. Some even believe they live above sin. Others believe they will go to heaven because they see themselves as basically good as anyone else. We know this is precisely how Paul perceived himself as a RELIGIOUS ADULT because he says so to the Philippians:

Philip. 3:4.....If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Hence, in Romans 7 he is speaking of himself as a DEVOUT RELIGOIUS ADULT highly trained in the Law. However, he lived in SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS, dead in sin but IGNORANT of it!

However, there came a point when the Holy Spirit took the Law and used it to reveal that he was not "blameless" concerning the righteousness of the law but was a VIOLATER of the law. At that precise point he went from self-perception as ALIVE under the law to being condemned of sin, thus DEAD under the Law. His actual SPIRITUAL DEADNESS had not changed at all but his KNOWLEDGE of his SPIRITUAL DEADNESS had changed. He had not changed from a sinner to a sinner in reality but only in regard to his own experiential KNOWLEDGE of himself.

"Without the law" meaning without this new KNOWLEGE provided by the Law he had been alive unto God as he saw his religious self, "blameless" in his own sight and thus justified by law for eternal life. However, when this KNOWLEGE provided by the law came his self perception as "BLAMELESS" was destroyed and he his indwelling sin nature revealed its ugly self and he went from "blameless" to condemned unto death in regard to his own KNOWLEGE.

When this KNOWLEGE of the law came, "I died" under the knowledge of revealed sin because it condemned him as a sinner and so his self-perception as "BLAMELESS" was changed.

Now, you won't accept this interpretation even though it is correct because you have an agenda to defend and because you are spiritually blind to this truth. However, I will let the readers come to their own conclusion whose interpertation is correct!

Of course when Paul said he "died" he was referring to spiritual death because he was still alive physically when he wrote those words. He knew that he died spiritually when he coveted even though at that time he did not even know that it was a sin.

Yes he was speaking of his own spiritual death. He simply came to the KNOWLEGE of his spiritual death at that point! He went from seeing himself as "BLAMELESS" under the law as a fully trained Religous Phariseeical Rabbi, to the realization he was and had been really SPIRITUALLY DEAD and just did not KNOW it! Nothing changed in his spritual status but his KNOWLEGE of it!

From this we can know that Paul was not born spiritually dead because a person must be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually as a result of sinning. Paul, as well as you and I, are born spiritually alive.

No, he simply came to KNOW by the Law his true spiritual condition since birth. He had died in Adam when Adam sinned -

"through the offence of one many BE dead" - Rom. 5;15

Ignorance of sin does not mean you are not a sinner. The Law reveals what you really are:

"Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law"

His attaining knowledge of it did not change anything but his own perception of himself. He was conceived in sin from his mother's womb and foolishness was "bound up in his heart" as a child from his mother's womb. His sinfulness was apparent to his parents because they had to DISCIPLINE him in order to "train him up in the way he ought to go" because he was sinful by nature and no training was necessary for him to do wrong! It came naturally by birth.

 

[The Biblicist]

How about instead of that we follow the Lord's teaching here?:

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Pvb. 22:6).

If as you say, we were all born "spiritually alive" and thus IN UNION WITH GOD as there is no spiritual life APART FROM UNION WITH GOD, then why on earth would children have to be TRAINED UP in the way he should go as that should come as a matter of NATURE by birth. A good tree brings forth good fruit! However, the truth is that children do not have to be trained to do bad but do it NATURALLY! Your theory is false doctrine and demonstatably false by simple observation.

So a new born infant has sinned? If new born infants are children of wrath then why would the Lord Jesus say the following about them?:

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.19:13-14).

Are we to believe that the Lord believed that infants are "children of wrath" but yet He would say of them that "such is the kingdom of heaven"?

Earlier in the context (Mt 18) Jesus had already brought a child to him and used the child to teach that the greatest among SPIRITUAL CHILDREN already in the kingdom of heaven are "AS" such a little child in humility and entrance into the kingdom of God requires humility "AS" demonstrated in well disciplined Jewish children:

Mt. 18:1 Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.


Therefore, the little child was simply a teaching illustration about the SPIRITUAL CONDITION required to be the GREATEST presently "in" the kingdom of Heaven among SPIRITUAL CHILDREN and the characteristic necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven
"as" SPIRITUAL CHILDREN.

So, "of such are the kingdom of heaven" does not have to be understood literally but refers to all of God's elect who are SPIRITUAL CHILDREN in his kingdom here on earth as well as in heaven. Indeed, it is impossible to interpret it literally for several reasons. These LITERAL children are still subject to death but children in heaven are not subject to death. These LITERAL children are still "flesh and blood" but "flesh and blood" cannot enter heaven.

Children are described as being "an heritage of the Lord":

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps.127:3).

Here is where cultural context comes into play. Israel was mostly an agricultural farming nation and the larger the family the more labors to raise crops, tend animals and do all the work necessary to make a good living. Hence, most had very large families and regarded children as a blessing. In regard to their own generational posterity children carried on the name of the family and maintained their family rights to their property. However, Deuteronomy 6 makes it clear that children are sinners by nature from birth as they had to be TRAINED to do right because they needed no training to do evil/wrong as that came as part of their NATURE from the womb.

Why would the following verse speak of a baby being "wonderfully made" if that same baby was spiritually dead coming out of the womb?:

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).

Even lost scientist acknowledge this scientific fact. Man is the pinnacle of God's creative work, a master peice of material, soulish, spiritual composition. However, that does not mean they are not without MORAL flaw when they are born and the proof is so obvious that only a fool would deny it. What obvious proof? They must be trained to do good as they naturally do evil without any training.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Need Christ for what?

Take the word 'all' out to its illogical end if you so desire, including infants against all reason and sound judgment, but when you do, you are dooming them without hope unless they repent, according to Scripture that is.

There are only two possible conditions of all humans on earth at any given time whether they are young or old, whether they are male or female!

They are either IN Christ or OUTSIDE of Christ! If you are IN Christ you are in SPIRITUAL UNION with Christ. If you are OUTSIDE of Christ you have not SEPARATED from God and SPIRITUAL DEAD.

So, are infants born IN Christ? If so, how did they become so? The Scriptures say those "IN him" were chosen before the world to be "in him" (Eph. 1:4). So it cannot be accidental or natural. The Scriptures teach that those chosen "in him" before the foundation of the world must be "created in Christ" (Eph. 2:10) by new birth!

So are you saying all born infants have been "chosen in him" before the foundation of the world and then in the womb are "created in him" by new birth????

What scriptures teach that new born infants are conceived "in Christ"???? If they are not "in Christ" then there is only one other alternative OUTSIDE of Christ and thus not in SPIRITUAL UNION with God but SEPARATED SPIRITUALLY from God - spiritually dead!

 

[glfredrick]

I'm getting a bit of push back from a couple of guys who think that infants are a special class of people that are sinless until they do "something."

This is precisely why the mixed up theology that says that man has to chose God doesn't work.

They also paint a picture where a sovereign God damns children to hell unless the children repent -- and use that picture against my position -- however, they fail to note the inconsistency in their stance. THEY say that everyone must repent BEFORE God brings regeneration, and based on that flawed doctrine, they then must (1) created a special class for children (yet balk when I suggest that we send all those special sinless children directly to God before they begin sinning and loose their spiritual life) and (2) accuse God of evil, in that He would actually damn those children for THEIR actions.

Perhaps what they are missing -- and a position more consistent with the scriptures and with what they are arguing -- is that God alone is the author and finisher of our salvation and that we are all born spiritually dead, but through Christ we live. Should God in His infinite mercy save infants that is His business, and I expect that we will know for sure one day instead of making half-baked claims that we cannot even proof text right now.

I finally ask those who hold to such a human-centered perspective that they re-read the Scriptures and discover God, whom is both sovereign and King.