Infants born with sin nature

Concerning angels:
Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? (Hebrews 1:14)

 

HP: No one blames sin strictly on a child's environment or anyone else's environment. Common sense would tell you that environment has a great impact upon every one, especially children. Your charges of humanism get old DHK, besides being far from the truth. Many things play upon the will of individuals in the process of sin including but not limited to one's environment. The influences of others upon around us have a great influence upon us. What reasonable man would deny that fact? Who would deny that children are easily influenced by their environment and the actions of those around them?

 

HP: As a matter of fact, "all" are not ministering spirits to believers. Some angels are fallen angels, followers of Satan himself. A shining example of Scripture written in common parlance by the way.

 

Gladly:
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? (Matthew 18:1)
--The topic: Who is the greatest in the kingdom?

And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, (Matthew 18:2)
--A child is used as an illustration, an object lesson.

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. (Matthew 18:3)
--The child itself is not converted. The child has faith. His faith in his parents, and at this moment in Christ who holds him. He is a trusting child. The topic here is trust, faith, without which you cannot please God. Without faith in Christ you cannot enter into His Kingdom. That is the illustration.

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:4)
--The child in humility and faith came to Jesus. Servanthood and humility are the key to greatness in the kingdom. Notice the simile--"as this little child." He is not talking about children.

And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. (Matthew 18:5)
--This is a metaphor. The child is now the believer.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which 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. (Matthew 18:6)
--This is also a metaphor, but better defined. Notice the children, "which believe in me". It is evident here that the children are believers in Christ. They have believed in Christ. Thus in verse 5 if we receive a believer in Christ's name, we also are receiving Christ. That doesn't apply to an actual "child." It applies only to believers.
But to those who offend believers (cause to stumble), it would be better for him to be dead. Christ is speaking of the severity of judgment that will come on those who cause believers, especially new believers to stumble, to fall, etc. Judgement will fall on those that persecute Christians. Perhaps not in this day, but that day will come.

His words only become stronger:
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! (Matthew 18:7)
He is speaking against those who cause Christians to stumble and fall.

 

Psa 58:3 is obvious exaggeration, no child has ever been born with the ability to speak or the mental faculties to tell a lie. A newborn does not even understand what a lie is. This whole passage is figurative, in vs. 4 he says they are poisonous like a serpent. Do you take that literally? In vs. 6 David asks God to break their teeth. Do newborns have teeth? And not just teeth, he calls them "great teeth of the young lions". Do you take this literally? Then in vs. 8 David asks that God melt them like a snail. Is this literal? And do all these verses apply to all children everywhere? Is David asking God to break all children's teeth and melt them like a snail?

Of all the supposed proof-texts for OS, this is the most ridiculous. It is obvious hyperbole.

 

DHK, I guess it's all how you desire to see it. Concerning Mat 18:6 Matthew Henry said this;

 

DHK would, even though his proof-texts are the same old tired proof-texts shown by every Calvinist (yes, I know you are not a Calvinist), showing he has been influenced by others. I guess he believes persons are born Mormons, or JWs, or any other false doctrine, influence from others has no effect at all on people.

When you can't argue the facts, simply call your opponent names.

 

DHK, now I feel bad. I desired you to address Psalms 58 and show us how that Psalm supports original sin. I should have been more specific. I am especially interested in the overall context of that chapter.

 

Oh, it's easy. Newborns are born with the ability to speak and tell lies. They are poisonous like snakes, and have giant teeth like lions.

But there is no reason to be afraid of them, if they bother you just sprinkle some salt on them and they will melt like a snail.

 

You didn't read carefully the post did you. The fact that HP and I came very close to agreeing on the meaning of the verse shows you did not understand what was said.

Therefore I am to conclude that your method of interpretation is thus:
Whenever the passage is written poetically it cannot be interpreted, it has no value as far as truth is concerned. It is void of all truth. Therefore it is trash. Throw it out. Read the Koran instead. What value is there in simple poetry??

Your above remarks are a denial of Scripture:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)

 

HP: Sadly we were miles apart DHK. David says those things specifically speaking of a group of individuals he calls 'fools.' He is not making any universal statement in support of any notion even closely related to OS, but rather is commenting in figurative language, 'as if though' that might appear to be true of the "FOOLS" spoken of. No one else but the 'workers of iniquity' and the 'fools' have these corrupted and wicked traits according to this Psalm. David sets himself and 'his people' at antipodes with the wickedness exhibited by those others and spoken of in such reprehensible terms.
Psalms 53:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good." Who said in his heart? The fool.

Psa 53:4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread:
Who have no knowledge and eat up his people? The ''workers of iniquity.'

Notice that he is pitting 'his people' clearly in a distinct manner separated from 'the fools and workers of iniquity' that are the focus of this Psalm.

 

HP: You fail to realize the whole thrust of this passage.

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.

 

One Psalm differs from another.
Read my response to you. Remember the Psalm in question is Psalm 58 not 53. Psalm 58:3 specifically:

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Psalms 58:3)

I'll quote your words for you:

 

DHK, Psalms 14, 53, an 58 are indeed alike in this basis way. They all address two distinct classes of people, the wicked and the righteous. David is pitting the wicked against the righteous and is not in any manner establishing all universally in the camp of the wicked. Look again at Psalm 58.

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' spoken of here as 'the sons of men.' 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.