Born Sinful.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1013.html

 

Look at the word. SIN - FUL, that which is full of sin, or overrun with sin, or that can not do what is not sin.

Human children are not born full of sin, of unable to do anything but sin.

Human children are born with a propensity to be receptive to sinning but are not sinners until they actually sin. And guess what the first sin that a child does is? Exactly the same sin that Adam did, Disobedience of Authority! It is then that they become sinners!

Human children are born with the ability to learn, the ability to believe or not believe, the ability and desire to survive, etc.

Human children are born with the attributes that God himself has such as grace, love, mercy, judgement just to name the "big 4". They must be taught to behave in accordance with those attributes however, because they a matter of the will, just like they are in God. God wills his grace, his love, his mercy, and love. He Turns them on and off at His will.

What God does not will is his omni-attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, eternal existance, etc. He exists in them!

NO, children are NOT born sinful, they become that way by sinning and not being corrected. Those who are corrected become "righteous" (a relative term). "Bring up your child in the way he should go, and he will not soon depart from it."

 

So, the only folks in need of a savior are those unwilling to discipline their children, then of course the children who were spared the discipline.

actually, children are conceived in sin and are sinful even before birth.


Bro. Dallas

 

Is it sin to lay with your wife as God intended and thereby conceive a child? If yes, you are right, if no, then you must agree that children are not conceived in sin!

Did not God command man to go forth and replenish the earth? That is not accomplished by rubbing two sticks together!

Is it not God's design that the species be perpetuated through sexual relations that result in offspring of the relations?

Is it not God's plan that man should have a mate and that the two become one, and that they have children who follow suit in their own time?

Where is the sin in that?

 

So, you have found a husband and wife who are without sin? Whose attraction to one another is wholly for the purpose of fulfilling the command of God to be fruitful and multiply?

Remember Adam and Eve? Did Adam and Eve know each other to consummate their marriage prior to or after the fall?

If prior to, then your premise of a circumstantial sinful nature to which we have a 'propensity to be receptive' (implying very strongly we can also reject, for where there is power to receive there must also be power to reject, or the power to receive cannot be realized) would be truth. If however, this consummation occurred after the fall then we see the consummation of the marriage of a sinful man and of a sinful woman (both totally depraved in their nature and willing by proof of previous action to act upon and engage in that lust to the satisfaction of the flesh).

We have discussed this before Yelsew. Did the woman eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because she was hungry and starving to death, or because she saw it was a fruit to be desired and able to make one wise?

Did satan tell her she would be 'like' God knowing good from evil? What desires and lusts did this woman in her spiritual nakedness entice her husband with so he too would partake of that forbidden fruit?

There is much truth found in the depths of just this one episode in scripture. I believe were it all the scripture of the Word of God there is enough found there to support the doctrines of Grace.

Having found a sinless mother and a sinless father, then you suppose you have found a child conceived without the sin nature?

No. This is why the blood of Christ shed on the cross has an eternal nature, it is not mixed with the blood of Adam. Remember the body Jesus took upon himself was prepared for him. This is a work of God.

Dear Brother give up on the man centered teaching engulfing you. You will never find rest in this world within that system.

Bro. Dallas

By the way, I did use to be a boy scout, we use to rub sticks together, but all we ever got was fire

 

Have you appointed me judge? I simply gave you some reasons why human children are not "totally depraved" as you like to profess.

Was there a marriage before they were cast from the garden? I didn't get an invitation, did you?

Where does it say in scripture that because of one sin man is sin-full? One sin would make man a sinner, but not 'sin full' unless there was "Totally Nothing Else" that man is capable of doing, and I see that God made man quite capable of doing a vast variety of things that are not sin.

Well there is two ways to look at this. One, Eve already had the "propensity to sin" or as you like to say 'was totally depraved'. which, either way, would mean that God made her that way in the creation such that she was easy to seduce into thinking that eating the fruit would make her as a God, because she could not do anything else.
Two, She was completely devoid of any capability, meaning she could not have resisted or consented but was under a spell cast by the beguiling serpent. The question of starving is irrevalent in light of where this happened.

Do you know the question to the question you asked with "did satan tell...."?

If you are arguing about the doctrines of grace, who are you arguing with?

Who found any humans who are sinless, meaning having never sinned, save for infants who have not openly disobeyed authority which is the sin of Adam and Eve. What I have said is when a man lies with his wife and the result is a child, what is the sin? Isn't that what God commanded? Would it not be a sin to refuse to do what God commanded them to do. Would that not make God the cause of sin?

Bro Dallas, it is the who that died and shed blood, not the blood itself. The bleeding was necessary to be in conformance with the law. And yes the shedding of blood is what pays the penalty for sin, thus removing sin from the Salvation Equation, so that All mankind can be saved through their faith instead of facing the second death.

My belief system is not man centered as you ignorantly insist it is. You simply ignore the fact that God made man, and did not make any mistakes in doing so. We are made in His image, we are not totally depraved, though we do have a propensity to sin. God has seen us at our worst and remains in love with us, so there must be something inherently redeemable about man. So get over your insane total depravity doctrine, accept man the way God accepts and loves man. Stop being so judgemental over what you perceive to be sin, sin don't count no mo~! Jesus paid the penalty for All sins in All times. Bringing Salvation to be a matter of FAITH ALONE!

That's why I used the "rubbing sticks" illustration!

 

Dear Brother Yelsew,
It is not late, but I am tired. I will respond to your post more fully later.

Let me say that the fact man is a created being means he is not infinite, would you agree?

The fact man is not infinite means he is subject to sin and thereby fall. This is how Adam began his abode in the Garden of Eden and how it ended dear Brother. God was not outflanked by the sin of either the man nor the woman.

In regards to the blood, you will find in studying the OT sacrifice and following out to that of Christ the blood could not be defiled. There could not be a spot nor blemish in the sacrifice of the OT, and likewise in the Son of Man. This means Jesus Christ was immutable, above sin, unable to sin without even the slightest propensity to be receptive to the lusts of the flesh.

If this is not true then there is will be found no truth.

I believe this is true concerning the blood of Christ. If any portion of that blood which was shed for the atonement can be traced to Adam, then we my brother are yet lost and shall die in our sins.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

No contest

NOT a true statement! Infinity has nothing to do with sin which resulted in 'the fall'! Sin existed before time, as we know it, came into existance!

Are you saying that Adam began as an infinite man, and that the only reason Adam died is that he sinned? Have you considered the ramifications of God's foreknowledge in this issue? Adam was the last of what God created and set in motion. God knew before he created man that His creation was not Permanent in the form he made it. The earth is in a continuous process of decaying. All life forms on the earth have life cycles, all non-life forms are subject to some form of erosion, corrosion, decomposition, etc. This heaven and this earth were scheduled for destruction before they were created. Man was made absolutely perfect for God's purposes.

Granted, God knew from before the foundation of the world, He is not subject to surprises.

But he was tempted in every way common to man, wasn't that an exercise in futility and completely unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. After all Satan knew Jesus before the foundation of the world, and if as a man Jesus could not succumb to temptation why would Satan even make the attempts? Why would Jesus be "tested" beyond what normal man could endure, if not to attempt to break him, for if he were to be broken, Satan wins! But alas, Jesus the WORTHY lamb of God did not break and did not sin. If there was no possibility of him sinning as you say, what glory is there in his "Worthiness". No sir, you just have not thought things through!

Just depends on what you are willing to accept as truth!

Is David a descendent of Adam? Obviously!

Is Mary the mother of Jesus a direct descendent of David? Obviously! Scripture tells us so.

Then the blood of Jesus is traceable to Adam! Case Closed! Jesus is "the son of man -- the Son of God!"

 

Yelsew, below I have tried to distinguish between your posts and my own. I have not done a very good job, but you can easily determine the distinctions between your posts and my own by the obvious distinctions in our views of Christology. In some places you will find my response within ().

May God Bless you dear Brother

Bro. Dallas Eaton

____________________________________________
Let me say that the fact man is a created being means he is not infinite, would you agree?No contest
________________________________________________

I am glad we agree on this.

_________________________________________________
The fact man is not infinite means he is subject to sin and thereby fall.[/QUOTE]NOT a true statement! Infinity has nothing to do with sin which resulted in 'the fall'! Sin existed before time, as we know it, came into existance!
_________________________________________________
I find we agree on this also, sin was found in a created being, Lucifer. I believe between Gen. 1.1 and 1.2, but that is not essential to our being in one accord. Yelsew, do you believe God created sin? If not, what in the created being permits the 'possibility' of sin?

_________________________________________________

Are you saying that Adam began as an infinite man, and that the only reason Adam died is that he sinned? I would agree to that, I do not believe Adam would have died except that he sinned. (In the day ye eat thereof ye shall surely die). Have you considered the ramifications of God's foreknowledge in this issue? (Yes. All I said is that if Adam had met the condition placed upon him in his original creation he would not have sinned and would not be subject to death. This is not meant to be an expression of my doubting of the foreknowledge of God. It is pure speculation, but shows the corruptible nature of conditional statements, don't you think?) Adam was the last of what God created and set in motion. God knew before he created man that His creation was not Permanent in the form he made it. (NO DISAGREEMENT from me on this point). The earth is in a continuous process of decaying. All life forms on the earth have life cycles, all non-life forms are subject to some form of erosion, corrosion, decomposition, etc. (Now you seem to be denying your own belief, what are some thoughts regarding the actions above and the sin nature? Please expand.) This heaven and this earth were scheduled for destruction before they were created. (I have no doubt of this as truth in a timely sense). Man was made absolutely perfect for God's purposes. (so, man was not subject to this erosion, corrosion, etc. in the original creation?).

Granted, God knew from before the foundation of the world, He is not subject to surprises.

Agreed.

________________________________________________

But he was tempted in every way common to man, wasn't that an exercise in futility and completely unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. (NO) After all Satan knew Jesus before the foundation of the world, and if as a man Jesus could not succumb to temptation why would Satan even make the attempts? (Satan focused on the flesh, don't confuse Satan's wisdom as being equal to the omniscience of God). Why would Jesus be "tested" beyond what normal man could endure, if not to attempt to break him, for if he were to be broken, Satan wins! (Again, Satan works based on flesh; in the 'grand scheme' of things, Satan ignored the fact of his creation and his mutabile (is that a word?) nature because of that). But alas, Jesus the WORTHY lamb of God did not break and did not sin. If there was no possibility of him sinning as you say, what glory is there in his "Worthiness". (There was no possibility of it dear Brother because He is God. Do not focus on the flesh. He was tempted, true, but this relates to His priesthood and not the possibility of his nature receiving any motivation to sin). No sir, you just have not thought things through! (It is primarily the differences in viewing Christology that has caused me to believe as I do. If sin could have found a place in him, what is the glory in that? Why did he state the prince of this world comes and he has no part in me? Yes Dear Brother, I have given much thought and prayer to this point and continue to do so because the depths of it cannot be found out.)
_________________________________________________

Just depends on what you are willing to accept as truth! (Truly stated).

_________________________________________________

 

What do we imagine as a degree of sin or sinfulness before God is justified in condemning us?

The simple truth is that if anyone were ever born (aside from Christ) without the sin nature and that nature became theirs when they first sinned, then it is possible for that person to not sin. In this possibility this person has no need for a savior, no need for the Lamb of God. This belief only removes the glory from Christ and centers it upon man.

If that sounds harsh, I am sorry. Didn't mean for it to sound that way. But isn't it obvious that this would be true?

Some of the first errors to come upon the church and plague it and has ever since is the idea that the sin nature was not passed to Adam's descendants. The end of this is humanism. Humanism makes man to be god.

Bro. Dallas

 

In Matt. 18 Jesus is not talking to unbelieveing lost people. He is talking to a group of people with the exception of Judas, who have believed, have shown fruit of repentance and have submitted to baptism. So, the example is not consisitent with what your friend is trying to prove.

Vs. 4 in this context shows this to be true. Converted means to be 'twisted' and will bear out the meaning of being brought back again. It means to be converted to the gospel of Christ not necessarily regeneration in view. Vs. 4 speaks of those who 'humble' themselves as being greatest in the kingdom of heaven. This means those in question are already in the kingdom of heaven and not seeking entrance. Entrance into the kingdom of heaven is not speaking of regeneration, but a position in that kingdom. Does your friend believe that only those who agree with him in all points of the Christian faith are saved? Probably not. So, assuming he does not, what aspect of this aside from the repentance, and profession that he witholds from others?

There is nothing in Matt. 18.1-4 that denies the sin nature in children. Where does he find even among believers mature in the faith who are 'sinless'? If we say that we have no sin, we decieve ourselves, and the truth is not in us. I John 1.8


Your friend said:
1 Cor. 14:20 "Do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature."

The Bible says:
Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

This is not speaking of our thinking or our thinking processes, but of our degree of understanding of the deep things of God; be mature in those things, but in jealousies, seeking for power or authority among the brethren be as children rather than as the political creatures men are. This is in line with the teaching at Matt. 18 concerning the humility of a child. If you desire to be a leader among the brethren you must be a servant. This is what Paul said. Otherwise when you are called to the banquet and you take the high seat the Master of the house will come in and bid you to sit in a lower position. (Paraphrased). Do not seek to put yourself in any place of authority or to seek honor to yourself. Submit to the will of God for you in Christ and serve in the capacity he has put you in. None of this is dealing with the nature of an unbelieving child nor is it reflective of a wholly sinless nature in the individual believer. So these passages are irrelevant to the argument because they are dealing with the relationship of believers to believers and not of unbelievers to regeneration. Otherwise my friend we are saved by our humility and not by grace through faith.


Your friend said:
If infants are just as evil as adults, then is God telling us here to be evil? Obviously no, evil begins in the heart - so even if an infant is incapable of physically sinning - there would still be sin in his heart.

What is so detestable about this? Isn't your friend putting his confidence in the outward appearance of innocence found in the infant? He is right in making the comparison above as one of the nature of the heart. This is why salvation is said to be a work without hands a circumcision of the heart, a removal of a stony heart and replacement with a heart persuaded of God's truth. Otherwise, your friend will find no disagreement in this statement from me. I believe it was in the heart that sin (pride) was found in Lucifer, not necessarily seen by his beauty as witnessed by scripture.

From Romans 5, where you say we sin because of Adam - if it is inherited...then if the parents of a child are Christians, why doesn't the child inherit that from the parents? Because it is a choice to sin, not a given nature.

The New Covenant is a fulfillment of the Old. IN the Old on the night of passover the blood of the passover was placed upon the doorposts of the home. The head of the household acted as the high priest, following the course of the priesthood we finally come to these last days as described by Paul in Heb. 1 and in this time men are spoken to by the Son of God. He has now entered upon his office of high priest. The mother and father in this example are natural partakers of the sin nature as inherited from Adam. The inheritance of their belief cannot be considered because they can only pass along that which is their nature. The only part of them that is of God is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They have no power to pass this to any other not even their offspring. That which is born of the spirit is spirit and that which is born of the flesh is flesh.

Although Yelsew has spent some time trying to prove the sinlessness found in the marriage relationship, I don't think this can be proven. Man and woman are not recorded as knowing each other in this relationship until after the fall. I love my wife, and my wife loves me, however, I would be lying if I denied a degree of desire (as mildly as I can put it) for her which attracted me to her, this will get us off the subject and more in the topic of personal relationships, so I will end my comment on that there. If you wish I can PM you or email you futher, but the fact there are some possibly reading this as young as 13 years of age I will refrain from saying more in this open post. I would argue on the side of your friend if this were not the case, otherwise I have to stand with the Bible and say that because man did not know woman in this capacity until after the fall, it remains the only nature man and woman can pass to their offspring is that sin nature your friend denies to be in children.

Adam did not only represent himself, but he represented all of mankind. Now, if we make the indwelling of the Spirit to be passed from believing parents to their children, Christ is not the savior of all who come to him, in fact, these children would not have to come to Christ, they would have not the need of repentance and your friend in essence is denying a whole lot of scripture for the sake of proving the outward appearance is evidence of the inward man (in reference to a child).

Ask him if he/she is prepared to accept as truth that Christ cannot benefit these children, after all they would possess the Holy Spirit by virtue of their conception of believing parents.

I will deal with the denial Yelsew is preparing when he presents it. He is going to assume then that I have to admit the atonement of Christ is not limited, but this is not the case and I will show that when and if he brings the charge.

Otherwise, tell your friend thanks for the questions and the opportunity to show the reason for the hope that is in me.

May God Richly Bless you.
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Frogman, I posted this on another topic, but since you are expecting it here, it post it again for you

 

Children are born with the sin nature, but as to them being "guilty" of "sin", we must remember that there are two biblical definitions of "sin"; one building upon the other. The basic legal definition is "transgression of the Law" (1 John 3:4). So looking at it that way, one says "that baby covets something that is not his. He has tantrums. He cries for food, (one here even added once). So he has "broken the Law", and is condemned as a sinner.

But the other definition, which goes beneath the first, is "to him who knows to do right and does it not, to him it is sin". (James 4:17) Related to that is "whatever is not of faith is sin" (Rom.14:23-- e.g. if you are not sure it is right). Then there is Paul's discussions in Romans about how "by the Law is the knowledge of sin" (4:20), "where there is no law, there is no transgression" (5:15). We non-Calvinists have often approached subjects like this with reason alone ("God would not hold babies accountable who didn't know any better"), but here is the scriptures that prove it. I have to confess that these just occured to me in light of this topic, and I remembered tryng to argue on the old Alliance board with those who believe God both condemns and elects infants, unborn, etc. apart from them living long enough to consciously commit "sin", or even be born. To them, since they were born with the nature, they do things that are considered "sin" for adults, if you don't say God holds them responsible like adults, you have denied sin (one questioned me, like I saw here somewhere "do they become sinners later", etc). For both Arminians and even Calvinists who say the unborn and infants below an "age of accountability" are saved, they accuse you of denying salvation by grace-- God is then "obligated" to save all of them because they are not old enough. I wish that board was back. I fumbled around for answers, but here from the Bible is the proof. People are looking at legal guilt, but God the Gospel teaches that God does not operate on Law (in which no one could be saved) He judges by conscientious guilt. Legally they are sinners, so that the universality of sin is not denied. Conscientiously, they are not charged with sin yet, and where there is no charged sin, there is no reason for God to condemn them.

 

Eric B, if these are your thoughts on this matter, you are sadly mistaken. Babies do not come into this world fully equipped to deal with it. That is why they must be cared for by an adult of the species. Crying when hungry, dirty, lonely, etc. are not sins when an infant does it.

You would deprive an infant of life sustaining food, or hygiene, or the comfort of social comfort? You'd be the sinner not the infant!

Responding to natural bodily functions is not Covetousness! Shame on you for thinking so!

The infant cannot break the law, for there is no law against communicating your hunger, dissatisfaction, and/or loneliness.

As to your second case, you rule out infants immediately because you state "whatever is not of faith is sin" Infants are not capable of having the kind of faith you are talking about, because they are not developed enough to have such faith.

Infants are equipped with the propensity to sin, which is disobedience to authority, however they are no equipped to exercise that disobedience because they do not "know" the difference between right and wrong.

 

Thatlast point was what I was trying to say. I didn't say I believed babies were guilty of sin. I was addressin the teaching of many (especially Calvinists) who do use those actions as examples of "sins" (the emphasis was on crying and tantrums, not just "responding to bodily functions". for adults, these woukld definitely be sinful reactions, but if you try to totally disassociate them from sin for children, you may be accused of denying their sin nature. So what I was saying was, if you want to attribute those behaviors to the sin nature, you must remember that God does not hold them accountable the way He does adults. No, babies cannot have "faith", and precisely my point was this renders that passage on faith/sin moot. They cannot be violating conscience by doing anything "not in faith".

 

Are babies subject to Jeremiah 17.5?

Can the crying of a baby be deceptive?

What degree of sin is needed by you guys in order that you will accept the presence of the wages of sin?

Bro. Dallas