Did Adam reach age of responsibility before

Personally, I believe that the doctrine of Original sin is based in both Old and New Testament Scripture. However, there are many scholars that insist that the idea of original sin is a post New Testament development which first emerged and developed incrementally through the Church Fathers during the first four centuries.

Although St. Augustine fixed the meaning of original sin in the fifth century and Original sin was not formally introduced into the Church’s doctrinal tradition until the Church Councils of Carthage (418 A.D.) and Orange (529 A.D.) I believe that the Early Church Fathers held the concept as it is demonstrated in the necessity of infant baptism.

'Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) proposed that sin was inherited from Adam, but viewed this inheritance as a bad example, not the sin itself. Ireneaus of Lyons (d. 200) interpreted Adam’s sin in Genesis 3 as simply disobedience, and not as a cosmic fall. Resulting in the cause of mankind’s shared sinfulness.'

 

I don't desire to derail this thread. But when I see statements that are either blasphemous or border on such, I believe they must be pointed out.

The trouble with this statement is that instead of being amazed at God as an infinite being, being confined by your finite language to describe him; instead you limited God to being finite and took away his omniscient. By doing so you made him less than God. I hope you realize that. If you don't I advise you to read closely your previous posts.

That is not what the verse teaches. It is saying that the worship of idols comes into the mind of men, into the mind of Satan, but not into the mind of God. God is not tempted to worship idols. It is not in his nature. Why do you try to twist the meaning of a verse to make it say what you want it to say just because you don't understand it? Study it first.

Luke 2:52 is the only verse (other than the incident of Christ debating with the teachers of law in the Temple) that tells of his childhood. It is hardly applicable to the years of his ministry. Again, it is a verse taken out of context. It deals with him as a man; his humanity. Why take Scripture out of context to prove something that is clearly blasphemous in nature?

Again, your statement limited Christ's comprehension of sin, saying sin was a mystery to even Him. That is blasphemous IMO.

 

Here is what you have failed to deal with throughout this thread. You have only taken one Scripture and commented on it, and from it have drawn some false inferences. Why not take the totality of Scriptures. This is only a small sample of what the Scriptures say concerning man's sinful inherited nature. There is much more.

God spoke about it in the book of Genesis:
Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
--If man's heart is evil continually, then when did that "continually" start? From "infancy" perhaps? "Continually" means all the time.

God spoke of it in Jeremiah's time:
Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
--Three rhetorical questions are asked--all with the same answer.
The Ethiopian, a black man, cannot change the color of his skin. He is born that way.
--The leopard cannot change his spots; he cannot become like a tiger with stripes. He is born that way.
--Man cannot change his evil ways. He is born evil. He is born with a sinful nature. He does not do good by nature. This verse very strongly teaches the inherent sin nature of man, even from an infant onward. He is born that way.

In Solomon's time:
Ecclesiastes 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
--No one is without sin. Man tries to do good and yet he sins. Why? Because he has a sin nature inherited from birth.

To take one of these verses without considering them all does not do you much good. Consider them all. Consider the weight of what the entire Bible is saying. It teaches over and over again that man is born with a sin nature.

 

HP: It would seem to me, as a reasonable individual, wavey that not only was their solution unscriptural but their concept initiating infant baptism unscriptural as well.

If in fact babies are born in sin, what solution(s) might you have for their cleansing? Scriptures please.

 

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 

HP: I never stated one time that God could not or did not comprehend sin. My point was NOT that sin is a mystery, but that the ’why’ men sin appears to have even God asking ‘why’ and that the ‘why’ of sin remains a mystery to some degree or another.

Anyone can say one sins due to selfishness, but it still begs the question ‘why’ do men choose selfishness? Why did some of the angels choose selfishness? Why did Adam and Eve choose selfishness, and yes, why have we chosen selfishness? You cannot blame your sin nor can I blame my sin on Adam, our parents, or any other. If we are to be blamed and punished for our sins, we individually have of our own free will chosen to that which is not necessitated by any force or coercion in the least. If sin is necessitated (which is an oxymoron), God alone stands to blame, for before anything else existed He existed. If God is not to blame, then God had to allow another force to be created with the power to do despite God’s power and will to do good. It is totally within reason for God to wonder as to why, this created power granted by God to a sovereign power over their own moral choices, given His power, grace, and blessings to mankind, that this created sovereign power (in our case man) would of his own free will choose to disobey. Yes, there is a mystery, and remains a mystery in spite of DHK believing there is not, as to why any sentient being would act in disobedience to a God of Infinite love.

There must be a disconnect between God and sin or God is the cause of all sin. I believe the disconnect lies in the fact that God created man a sovereign being, sovereign over his own moral choices. If you fail to have a disconnect between God and sin, there remains one alternative, i.e., God as the author of all sin. I am waiting to see in your theology that disconnect between God and sin. I have seen none thus far. I see you promoting a system that leads to one place alone, i.e., necessitated acts of sin, which necessitates God as being the author of all sin. If you believe otherwise, then establish for the list that disconnect that positively separates him from being the author of sin.

Just to be perfectly clear, my position is that God created man with sovereignty over his moral choices and that nothing serves as a cause for our sins but our own wills. Many influences (some directly caused by physical depravity) ply upon our will but if we are to be blamed the will must remain free to do something other than it does under the very same set of circumstances. If the will is necessitated by any other force or individuals sin, that force or other individual is the only place moral blame can reside. God blames me personally verifying my sovereignty over the choices I have made.

 

Oh? You never said that God could not or did not comprehend sin? Then please explain this post, as I have asked you to do many times now.

 

In light of John 3:3, how is an infant that dies subsequent to childbirth cleaned of the sin they were born with? Let me use your same logic. The word man is a universal statement that includes every man women or child part of the human race, and as such all must be born again. How can an infant be born again?

Now let me add yet one verse to the mix. Lu 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Certainly ‘all’ is a universal statement including all human beings of which infants are clearly included. (again using your logic) How can an infant repent, and if it cannot repent how can it enter heaven as a sinner from birth? Scriptures please.

 

DHK, if you cannot see a distinction between ‘WHY” men sin and sin itself, the problem is with your comprehension not my remark.

 

God has only one plan of salvation--faith in Christ and in his atoning sacrifice. There is no other way. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. There is no other answer. Not even for infants which have inherited a sin nature. And they have.

As for those infants all one can do is leave their fate in God's hands. David said: "I cannot bring him to me; I shall go to him." David was confident that he would see his infant in heaven. We was confident in a merciful God. He cast himself on the mercies of God. However, there still remains only one way of salvation. We leave the rest up to God.

 

Let's put it another way. You say:

Christ could not evidently comprehend or understand--why men sin.

Does not that look like a blasphemous statement to you?
Doesn't Christ understand all things?

 

So are infants saved by faith or not?

 

Study the Scripture. Ask the Lord.

 

HP: First, no. It does not look in the least as a blasphemous statement, and I for one believe you are clearly operating outside of the rules of this forum to make such a false and over the top accusation.

Secondly, there are two truths to harmonize the best we can. God is Omniscient according to Scripture and God has created sovereign beings in moral agents, sovereign over all moral choices that God blames or praises sentient beings for. I do not believe your interpretation of the passage in Jeremiah is correct, but you are free to do with it as you wish. I for one see it as a clear indication that there is a disconnect of some kind between God’s Omniscience/Omnipotence and man’s moral choices. Scripture clearly (to me that is) shows amazement, wonder, questions in God’s mind etc. etc. as to ‘why men act as they do at times. If Scripture coins things in a manner that depicts such wonder or question by an Omnipotent God, I can see absolutely no reason not to coin my words in like or similar manner. If God does no harm to His Omniscience or Omnipotence by speaking of Himself in such a manner, I do not believe I do any harm either. God often expresses Himself by words or the means of human emotions, emotions we are familiar with.

Another example would be God changing His mind. We are told He does not change, yet we see clear example in Scripture when He expresses His actions as changing His set course of actions for various reasons. God evidently desires for me to view Him as a God with emotions, feeling and the ability to alter or change His course of actions in light of mercy, grace, love, etc, when he feels it best in light of His character and purposes to do so. I can rest assured, any change will be in accordance to his attributes and character of love and mercy.

 

HP: A sinner far from God could answer that one DHK. How can an infant without the least comprehension of something have faith in it???? If you have to study to find that answer you are in trouble.

 

Why are you in trouble HP? I told you to study the Scripture and come to your own conclusion by searching the Scripture and asking the Lord. Are you incapable?

 

There are only two possibilities. You either have a system of necessity or you have a system of moral freedom. No reasonable person attributes moral guilt to actions that are the results of necessity. It is unjust to feel or attribute moral guilt if no other possible choice of action was humanly possible under the same conditions. God instilled ‘first truths of reason’/’immutable truths of justice,’ that will not allow the reasonable mind to blame or praise anyone for actions driven by necessity.

God blames men for their moral choices, therefore man must be under a system of freedom as opposed to necessity. Man must be able to do something other than what he does under the very same set of circumstance in order for just guilt, blame, or praise to be attributed for a given formed intent or subsequent action.

Morality lies first in the intent of the heart, where the choice is made in accordance to selfishness or benevolence. All moral actions are the mere necessitated product of moral intents formed in the will voluntarily without force or coercion. One can ONLY do as he wills. The actual doing sustains to the will the relationship of necessity not freedom. If freedom exists it must lie first in the will as a sovereign ability to form a moral intent without force or coercion, and that as a gift from a Sovereign God creating a sentient being in His image and likeness.

Of a truth, a Sovereign God has chosen to create beings sovereignly able to form moral intents apart from force or coercion and as such personally responsible for the formation of all moral intents and subsequent moral actions.

 

No DHK, I am not incapable. I read and study the Scriptures daily.

 

For anyone to attack those attributes which make God, God, is serious.

I would suggest that you read some other commentaries and not rely on just your own understanding. John Gill may be a good starting point.
God is omniscient. That is right.
God did not create sovereign beings. Where do you get that from? We are totally dependent on God for all things. God is the potter; we are the clay. We are not sovereign; God is.
Our moral choices come from our sin nature. We are prone to do evil because of our sin nature. Read Romans 7. Paul testifies that he does what he does not want to do, and does not want to do what he should do. Why? Because it is sin that dwells in him. He testifies of the sin nature that dwells within.

The only disconnect between man and God is a separation caused by sin. Man is separated from God by sin. The prophets have pointed this out over and over again.

Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

Psalms 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Habakkuk 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?
--God cannot even tolerate sin, the prophet says. Why even put up with it? Why doesn't he just destroy the wicked.
--Jonah wanted God to destroy the wicked city of Nineveh. When God didn't he sat down and wept. Jonah had not love for those Gentiles. In his sight they were wicked sinners deserving of God's wrath.

If this is true, then God is not God. God has need of nothing. God is not amazed. God does not wonder. There are no questions in his mind. He is not lacking in intelligence. He is not lacking in anything. If he was He would not be God.
Sometimes the Bible is anthropormorphic in its language to help us understand more about God. It tells us about "the right hand of his righteousness," when in fact God does not have a right hand. God is spirit (John 4:24). Spirit has no physical form. "He will hide us under his wings." God doesn't have wings. This is another anthropormorphism. It is attributing to God some physical shape that man understands to help man understand God. There is much language in the Bible that is used in the same way.

Not true. God is not a man. He doesn't wonder. He doesn't question.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

--You make God less than God. You put him on the same level of a man, thus taking away from his deity.

The Bible uses expressions of human emotions that we are familiar with to help us come to a better understanding of who God is. That doesn't mean that God has those emotions. God doesn't cry. God doesn't fear. God doesn't change his mind. He knows the end from the beginning. He is God.

God does not change his mind. Read again Numbers 23:19. God is not a man...that he should repent (change his mind). He doesn't. Man does, but God does not. His foreknowledge prevents him from doing so. He knows ahead of time every decision, every prayer that you are going to make. He knows already the outcome.

Your view of God is one thing. But when you limit God to anything less than God, which you have done, then it is blasphemous. God is not limited in knowledge, and man is not sovereign.

 

HP: I like that DHK. I almost forgot about that big word. That must be the way I think and express in language words befitting of His Infinite Character and Attributes.:thumbs: :godisgood:....and Infinitely so!