Infants born with sin nature

HP: That's the spirit! :thumbs:

 

Don't be deceived. Humanism teaches that man is basically good. That is what you teach. Man in his infancy is basically good. It elevates man to "godhood" at infancy, since only God is good.

It is. According to the Word of God it is.
During this time, this season, where we sing--Peace on earth, good will toward men. But is there?

Islamist militants set off bombs across Nigeria on Christmas Day - three targeting churches including one that killed at least 27 people
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/explosion-rocks-church-nigerian-capital-081741789.html

Police find 7 shot to death in Fort Worth-area apartment on Christmas Day
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/texas-police-7-dead-dallas-area-apartment-christmas-212719556.html

Iran says woman's stoning case might change to hanging
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-says-womans-stoning-case-might-change-hanging-201203113.html

Is there peace on earth and good will toward men?
No. This is the natural thing that men do. It is a result of their depraved nature. Even on Christmas Day, the most depraved crimes happen, all over the world. It is just more evidence of the depravity of man.

There is never any excuse for sin, and God never gives an excuse for sin. This is simply a matter of what saith the Lord? What does the Bible teach. We teach from a foundation of Scripture, not from a foundation of philosophy and sentimentality. That seems to be your foundation. The Liberal says: "Surely a God of love wouldn't...." That sounds like you. You are not dealing with Scripture but with feelings.

Yes, and all of that. Man has no excuse. But man is depraved, and therefore sins. If man were not depraved one would see some evidence of that. But in every age of history we have never seen not even one individual overcome the depravity of the human heart and live a sinless life. Why? Because man has a depraved heart, and is not good, not sinless. Why can't man live a sinless life? Because he is born with a sin nature. Even in a perfect setting, in the Millennial Kingdom, when Christ rules with a rod of iron, men will rise up against Christ at the end? Why? They will demonstrate the depravity of the human heart.

Why the red herring. No one here holds to antinomianism. All of us hold to the fact that we are all accountable for our sins. We are speaking of infants and children, remember? You are off track once again. You are arguing like the one who denies OSAS. "Your belief in OSAS "is the favorite excuse of perverts and liberals who excuse all sorts of sinful behavior, etc., etc.," saying my sins are already forgiven, why not? You put forth the same illogical argument as they do. No wonder HP agrees with you! It is a complete red herring.

 

HP: DHK, let's cut to the chase. You say that no one here holds to antinomianism. Let's put that remark to a test. As a believer, will sin separate you from God? Is the law your judge, or will you be judged by the law? When you sin, is the penalty for sin incurred? Is there any sin that you could commit that would keep you out of heaven?

 

I don't know (or care) much about what Finney believed, but if his pastor was a hyper-Calvinist, I would have probably disagreed with his views on subjects like atonement myself. Both Cals and non-Cals believe in atonement, one Limited and the other Unlimited. So, there is not enough detail mentioned to know exactly what Finney disagreed with. I do know that Finney was trained as a Presbyterian. I would disagree with many Presby teachings, and so would you.

Finney may have been in error, I really don't care, that has nothing to do with my view on OS.

 

Here we go again. Now we are told by DHK to read yet another Calvinist to ascertain what Finney believed.

Get a mind of your own DHK.

 

From one Calvinist to another DHK jumps in lock step with conclusions they have made concerning others. Then DHK tells us he doesn't follow Augustne or Calvin. I know one thing, the men he is reading and quoting certainly have. So much for DHK forging his notions on his own anvil or not being influenced by some he tries to distance himself from.

 

Your logic is put thus:
HP won't trust the words of John the Baptist about Jesus, only the words of Jesus himself. John the Baptist was the messenger, a voice calling in the wilderness. He foretold of Christ. And then he pointed to Christ. But don't believe the messenger HP. Ignore him.

I directed you to a site about Finney. It was the messenger. If you don't believe the messenger then do your own research and find another messenger whom you do trust. In fact I took my research and posted from two different sources from two different backgrounds entirely and still am criticized. My conscience is clear.

 

DHK, all I am saying is that Total Depravity gives every pervert and criminal the perfect excuse for their behavior. They can (and do) say they were born that way. And the shocker is, according to your view that is absolutely correct!

My view disagrees, I do not believe they are born this way, I believe they choose to live this way.

OSAS is another subject. I absolutely believe a true believer is preserved and can never lose their salvation. I believe they are sealed by the Holy Spirit and that Jesus promised that he would never leave us nor forsake us.

But back to OS, there are just too many scriptures that I believe clearly refute it. And I believe the scriptures presented to support OS are very weak. Actually, when interpreted properly, many of these proof-texts for OS refute it, such as Rom 3:12 which says we have "gone out" of the way and "become" unprofitable. If you have gone "out" of the way, then you were once "in" the way. If you have "become" unprofitable, then you were once profitable. These terms show something new, a change. Folks overlook these words because their mind has been conditioned by false doctrine. They are blinded, they actually do not "see" these words.

 

I tried to tell you before, you are off topic here.
The topic is "infants born with a sin nature."
You don't believe that.
But you do believe that adults have a sin nature.
So your whole premise goes down the drain. Unless you believe people can live perfectly sinless lives, to say that OS leads to "criminal behavior, etc." is absurd. You believe the same thing, except that it comes at a later age, as soon as they are old enough to sin or decide to sin. They are still sinners, and no one can blame sin on anyone but themselves. Your premise is entirely faulty, and this discussion is not about adults doing evil. It is about children doing evil.
Recognize the fact. There is evil in this world. That is a fact. That evil comes from children, teens, young and old adults. It is everywhere. We have seen murders from people very young. In 1995 an eight year old boy in Jersey City, was charged with murder for starting a fire that killed a 68 year old man. We would say that despite his age, he was depraved, and did a depraved act. How could he have been sinless, though he was simply eight years of age? This is not about adults. It is about children. The depravity of man; original sin begins at birth.

 

I do not deny evil. Why is it when someone disagrees with OS, they are falsely accused of believeing man is good, or denying that evil exists? That is a false argument. Before Adam sinned, he was good and no evil existed. After he sinned he was evil and evil existed in the world.

It is the same with babies, they are made upright, this is why Jesus said of such is the kingdom of heaven. After they sin they are evil.

Sin is not an essence, it is not a substance, it is something you do. If you have never robbed a bank, then you are not a bank robber, but the moment you do, you are.

 

Are you saying the eight year old was born already eight? Just because an eight year old does something wrong, that doesn't mean a new born does. An eight year old has time to pick up bad habits. There is no telling how much TV he has already been subjected to at that age, not to mention bad company.

 

Exactly. Little children are naive, just like Eve was. Adam and Eve were very good, yet the very first time they were tempted they sinned. Now imagine a little child born in a world with a million devils tempting him. His parents sin, his siblings sin, his grandparents sin, his friends sin, every person he meets sins, he watches sin all day on TV. Do you think he is not influenced by all the sin around him? Of course he is. We are flesh, we are weak, we are highly susceptible to temptation. But there is a point where we know right from wrong, and at that point we are accountable.

Children don't need to be born evil, we will help them along.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

 

George Gale was certainly not a hyper-Calvinist! If anything he was too lenient with Finney.

Here is a significant quote by Johnson:

"Ideas Finney had toyed with since his pre-conversion days thus became the heart of the theology he espoused until the end of his life."

I think the same goes for a number of (not all) non-Cals.

Non-Cals believe in a limited atonement. Spurgeon had some insightful comments about this.

Michael Horton wrote a piece called:Charles Finney Vs. The Westminster Confession. In it,Horton details the departures from the faith that Finney subscribed to.

He lied when he took vows saying that he adhered to The Westminster Confession of Faith --just like some other well-known "Presbyterians" like Billy Sunday and J.Vernon McGee.

 

No. It is another topic--the age of accountability. That would be different for each and every individual. The courts obviously determined that this eight year old was "accountable" for his heinous crime. Not only was his nature depraved. But he of his own choice deliberately set fire to a building with intent to kill. He planned things out. It shows: 1) the depths of the depravity of the human heart even at a young age, and 2) that young children, even according to our laws, must be responsible for their crimes.
It is not one or the other. It is both.
We sin because of our nature.
We sin because we enjoy it. We like it. We want to. We are selfish. It is in our nature to sin. And that is the very reason we have to teach very young children to tell the truth. By nature they lie, as soon as they are born (Psalm 58:3).

 

HP: Prove any one of these men "lied" when they took their vows.

 

DHK has suggested that this verse is a proof text of original sin or being born in sin : Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

HP: If one would take the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one would come to the plain truth that this Psalm was NOT written in any way to support some notion of original sin or inherited depravity, not only because of the context but the fact that the Jews did not hold to inherited depravity in the least. There was no place in their theology for such a notion. Original sin was simply foreign to them.

The context of the Psalm clearly indicates two groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses the wicked and speaks clearly to their final destruction. David cries out to God to let “every one of them pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘all’ of them and wash His feet in their blood. Is DHK holding to the belief that God is going to wash His feet in the blood of innocent babies, millions of which are the product of the abortionist’s knife? God help us!

Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto the righteous. He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting the wicked with the righteous. He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.

In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the wicked appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, and that as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin would indicate and DHK wrongly assumes.

 

Humanism again. You are blaming the child's sin on his environment instead of having the child take responsibility.

Why would you want to do that?
If they are born sinless, then they don't need encouragement to sin.

Study the passage. It is not speaking of children.
It is speaking of Christians. Jesus is using the imagery of children in referring to "his children," that is believers in Christ.

 

DHK, show us your exposition of this chapter.

 

Wow. Jesus was absolutely speaking of children in this passage. In vs. 10 he warns not to despise one of these little children, as their angels do always behold the face of his Father.

 

It took you long enough to cut to the chase. Your right. David was not on a doctrinal tear. He was not profusely expounding doctrine from Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle. But that doesn't mean he was writing lies either. It doesn't negate the truth in the psalm.
As you have said, he was expressing in poetic terms that the wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to be engaging in wickedness.

Very good. David described the depravity of man, as he observed it in children. You finally agree. That is not "nothing in this passage," that is something in this passage that teaches the depravity of man from birth onward. As soon as they are able to speak, they speak lies. Wickedness is found in them. You recognize this. You say this and then in the next breath will deny it. But you have just admitted it. Poetic or not, that is what David said. He doesn't have to be behind a pulpit to make it truth.