Why do True Believer Christians define some children as "innocent" . . .

[billwald]

as in thread http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=82420

Don't you all know that we are all born "in trespasses and sins? As you all like to point out, God knew that David would be a murderer before he was born.

 

[Yeshua1]

as in thread http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=82420

Don't you all know that we are all born "in trespasses and sins? As you all like to point out, God knew that David would be a murderer before he was born.

Infants are born guilty before God, as indeed in sin natures, but I maintain thatin Christ, God decreed that His death would provide the propiation for them!

Guilty as charged, forgiven by God!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Do you differentiate between a "sin nature" in which each human has a conqusipence towards evil and "actual sin" in which someone willfully commits a sin?

 

[webdog]

as in thread http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=82420

Don't you all know that we are all born "in trespasses and sins? As you all like to point out, God knew that David would be a murderer before he was born.

Scripture for this? Ephesians passage you quoted says nothing of being born in trespasses and sins

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you differentiate between a "sin nature" in which each human has a conqusipence towards evil and "actual sin" in which someone willfully commits a sin?

All physical born are in Adam, spiritually dead

All reborn in Jesus, in Him, Spiritually alive again!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

All physical born are in Adam, spiritually dead

All reborn in Jesus, in Him, Spiritually alive again!

Fair enough. so you don't distinguish between sin nature and conducted sin?

 

[The Biblicist]

Fair enough. so you don't distinguish between sin nature and conducted sin?

Sin is condition/state/inclination/attitude of heart toward God, toward self and others regardless if it is acted out through bodily manifestations or not. Sin is any other motive for being, living and acting other than for the glory of God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sin is condition/state/inclination/attitude of heart toward God, toward self and others regardless if it is acted out through bodily manifestations or not. Sin is any other motive for being, living and acting other than for the glory of God.

And So you don't differentiate as God did with Cain between a sin nature and sin acted upon?

 

[The Biblicist]

And So you don't differentiate as God did with Cain between a sin nature and sin acted upon?

First, of all the proper intepretation of that particular text is highly debated and like all isms your ism relies upon ambiguous instead of clear explicit statements of scripture.

What I said is true and is based upon clear unamibgious scriptures repeated found in scripture. Sin is a STATE of heart that is at "enmity" toward God regardless if a baby is born without a tongue or four limbs. Completely without any mode of expression they are SINNERS and SINFUL!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First, of all the proper intepretation of that particular text is highly debated and like all isms your ism relies upon ambiguous instead of clear explicit statements of scripture.

What I said is true and is based upon clear unamibgious scriptures repeated found in scripture. Sin is a STATE of heart that is at "enmity" toward God regardless if a baby is born without a tongue or four limbs. Completely without any mode of expression they are SINNERS and SINFUL!

You don't seem able to answer the question.

 

[The Biblicist]

You don't seem able to answer the question.

No, you fled to an ambigous text. I simply refused to be restricted to one ambigious text. My answer was very clear and there are many clear and explicit scriptures to support my answer and none of which are ambigous.

Romans 8:7 is clear an unambigious
Matthew 15:18-19 is clear and unambiguous
Ephesisans 4:18 is clear an unambiguous
etc.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, you fled to an ambigous text.

Not true. I asked a simple question: "do you distinguish between having a sin nature and actually commiting a sin." and I referred to not a ambigous text but a specific text in Genesis where God specifically says to Cain

“Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for[c] you, but you must rule over it.”

saying that God certainly seems to distinguish between the two.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not true. I asked a simple question: "do you distinguish between having a sin nature and actually commiting a sin." and I referred to not a ambigous text but a specific text in Genesis where God specifically says to Cain saying that God certainly seems to distinguish between the two.

As I said, you fled to an ambigous text for refuge. I answered your question clearly and concisely and presented an obvious problem that you could not answer. The problem presented is the fact that a baby with no tonuge, no arms, no legs is not merely SINFUL by nature but a SINNER by nature as the very nature is "enmity" toward God and the very heart motive is self-centered.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As I said, you fled to an ambigous text for refuge.

Not an ambiguous text at all. and certainly not a refuge. I can pull up more scripture to show how God differentiates between sin nature and committed sin but this came first to mind. You haven't answered clearly because my question was "do you differentiate between sin nature and committed sin" and you avoid answering the question by obfuscating about my use of Genesis. Your answer need only be yes or no. I hold that yes a person in his nature is at emnity towards God. That wasn't the question. The question is do you differentiate between having a sin nature and commiting a sin? I find it an easy question. Why are you having such difficulty with it? Is it because you don't know? If you don't just say so.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not an ambiguous text at all.

If you do not think this is a highly debated text it is because you have not done any serious study.

I can pull up more scripture to show how God differentiates between sin nature and committed sin but this came first to mind.

Of course there is a distinction between the sin nature and EXTERNAL commission of sin but there is no difference between the sin nature and sinfulness before God as a person incapable of COMMITTING EXTERNAL acts of sin by tongue, legs and arms is still committing INTERNAL sin by their very condition of heart which is in a STATE OF ENMITY towards God. Sin begins with INTERNAL ACTIONS that are characteristic of the very STATE of the human heart - wrong motives and thoughts, enmity toward God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If you do not think this is a highly debated text it is because you have not done any serious study.

Wow you do jump around a bit! The fact that its highly debated doesn't mean its and ambiguous text. Because first you haven't said what about this verse is highly debated. The fact is God tells Cain that sin is at his doorstep but warns him not to let it rule him. Suggesting that understanding that Cain has a sin nature that somehow a personal committed sin is classed differently. I'm certain that isn't what is debated about this verse. More likely what is debated about this verse is whether God believed or not that Cain could of himself overcome the sin. But I haven't touched upon that at all. I was referring to differentiating between sin nature and actual commited sin.

Of course there is a distinction between the sin nature and EXTERNAL commission of sin

Well, that was my question. Thank you for answering. Which gets to my point. This being the case therefore can one be innocent of an external commision of a sin but still have a sin nature?

 

[The Biblicist]

This being the case therefore can one be innocent of an external commision of a sin but still have a sin nature?

One cannot be innocent of sin merely because they have not exercised EXTERNAL sins as the sin nature is the CONTINUOUS INTERNAL EXERCISE OF SIN. So your dichotomy should not be between a "sin nature" and external sin but between internal verus external sin as the sin nature is pure continous action internal sinfulness at work.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

One cannot be innocent of sin merely because they have not exercised EXTERNAL sins as the sin nature is the CONTINUOUS INTERNAL EXERCISE OF SIN.

but that wasn't my contention. My contention is can one be innocent of commiting a sin yet still be under a sin nature? I can still be condemned to hell for my emnity against God yet never be guilty of having committed murder. Is that not so? Would I not then be innocent of commiting murder?

 

[billwald]

>>Originally Posted by billwald
>>as in thread http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=82420

>>Don't you all know that we are all born "in trespasses and sins? As you all like to point out, God knew that David would be a murderer before he was born.


>Scripture for this? Ephesians passage you quoted says nothing of being born in trespasses and sins

Didn't know I quoted a scripture in this thread. You all know the Bible better than I do. If I say two times two equals four I don't need to reproduce the multiplication table. The multiplication table should be "written on your hearts."

Truth, the Bible teaches that we all have a sin nature but God only punishes us for actually committed sins, not for our father's sins or by implication, "thought sins." You all know better than I do.

 

[billwald]

If God knows the entire list of our sins before we are born and if God doesn't punish us for our sins until after we die, then doesn't the question of sin nature vs actual sin become silly?