original Sin vs Sinful Nature

HP: Reason and conscience testifies to such an age, and to believe otherwise is simply folly. Even the heathen who have never read Scripture could understand the concept as according to truth. Why is it that it is only those desirous of cover for an unfounded preconception deny such an obvious truth?

 

I am Reformed. You should probably learn a little more about Reformed theology before you decide to judge.

 

...your reformed view of total depravity is unorthodox, then, as TD teaches we are born dead.
Maybe you should learn a little more about reformed theolgy yourself :BangHead:
Who judged, btw? I asked the question. I shouldn't expect anything but vitriol from your posts, though...

 

The doctrine of the Age of Accountability is a fiction developed by those who would teach that mental capacity is a prereq. for salvation in order to comfort the parents who lost a lost child. It is nothing more.

 

I see you failed to read the Scripture I supplied. How you can still state that after reading it is baffling.

 

HP: What would you say that the fate of a lost child might be? Can an infant believe? Can an infant reject salvation? Can an infant repent? Do you believe there are any prerequisites of salvation for anyone?

Scripture does tell us concerning children, that “of such is the Kingdom of Heaven” does it not? Can you show us from Scripture where original sin is covered in such cases?

 

THe short answer is, YES.

JDale

 

TD who?

You should expect me to answer in the same spirit you asked.

In Reformed theology, the doctrine of "total depravity" has nothing to do with being "born dead" and everything to do with the degree to which humanity is separated from God. We do not know God, and do not even want to know God. Thus it is the grace of God and God alone which calls us to reconciliation, since we are too depraved to be interested in reconciliation on our own.

If you have as problem with that, you need to discuss it with Reformed theological scholars like John Leith and Shirley Guthrie.

 

1.
Possession of moral knowledge or understanding is necessary before there can be accountability. There is no reason to fear that God makes children accountable at too early an age. He can be trusted to judge righteously:

Deut 1:39 ...and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither...
Isa. 7:16...For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good...
Jonah 4:11...And And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand [most scholars understand this as a reference to children below 'the age of accountability']; and [also] much cattle?

2.
A baby's only real sin is the flesh/sinful nature. They are not be held accountable for wetting their diaper, making a mess when they eat or any other thing babies do. God at the same time does not hold a baby accountable because he has not believed on our Lord and Saviour. They have not reached an understanding yet, and are not accountable for such knowledge:

Romans 4:15....Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.

3.
David was "a man after God's own heart." After he sinned with BathSheba, he fasted before God hoping to see the child of he and BathSheba spared. When the child died, David stopped fasting, got dressed and ate. He knew that he would go to his son one day -- the clear inference is that he would see his child in God's presensce -- in heaven:

2 Samuel 12:19-23...But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed [himself], and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.Then said his servants unto him, What thing [is] this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, [while it was] alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell [whether] GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

4.
A person is only "spiritually alive" without the law before he or she is responsible and accountable. Paul understood this and made clear that in this sense, he was "alive" prior to the knowledge of his own sin through an understanding of God's Law:

Romans 7:8,9...But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead.For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

5.
Thus, Paul was saying that as a child he was alive, (spiritually safe). But when he reached a certain age of maturity and understanding, he became spiritually dead in the knowledge of his sin. There are differences of opinion, but [IMO] this is not a specific age since all children mature at different rates. Some would take the very literal Jewish belief that accountability begins at age 13:

Romans 5:13...For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

6.
Though a child is "guilty" of original sin, because they have neither knowledge of God's Law nor the ability to act according to knowledge and conscience, they are NOT held accountable for sin -- certainly not for the sin of those who have gone before:

Ezekiel 18:19-20... Yet ye say, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? The soul that sinneth, it shall die; the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him,and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

7.
THe Lord Himself used "little children" as an example of the kind of attitude ALL must have in order to come to Him and enter His Kingdom. This was a poor metaphor on His part if it wasn't accurate and true:

Mark 10:14 - "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God."

Matthew 19:14 - "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 18:3 - "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

These passages, in my view, reflect a Biblical understanding of God's will -- and mercy -- toward children below the age of accountability. There is ample basis for the safety of children who die in infancy or before the age of accountability.

JDale

 

HP: Regardless of how you get there, I believe you have arrived at truth.

HP: If there is no transgression, there can be no sin, for sin IS the transgression of the law.

HP: I believe that Scripture infers that a person is only guilty of the law subsequent to receiving knowledge. Knowledge is clearly a prerequisite of transgressing the law. By Paul stating that he was alive without the law, implies that he was not judged by it until he came into new light. As light came, sin and conviction came with it.

HP: You might as well say one is guilty of being born with the color of their eyes of the color of their skin as to say that they are ‘guilty of original sin. Guilt implies remorse, and remorse implies knowing that one could of done something other than what he did under the very same set of circumstances, and if one knows they could not have done differently, there can be no remorse, and any feelings of guilt are obviously unfounded. If you are not held accountable, you are not guilty.

You are correct in stating that we are not accountable for the sin or guilt of those than have gone on before. Everyman stands accountable to God for their sins, not those of another.

 

Spiritual death is spiritual separation. There aren't degrees of separation. According to calvinism, men are born spiritual corpses...dead.

yes...this is dead according to calvinistic definitions.

 

Try and do some research on the differences between strict Calvinism and Reformed theology.

 

HP: Are you saying that reformed theologians do not hold to TULIP? If not, which ones do they disagree with?

 

You are referring here to emotional guilt. You are therefore correct that those under the age of accountability cannot experience guilt.

I am referring to judicial guilt. Before God, ALL humans are indeed GUILTY, just as an unremorseful and unrepentant criminal might be guilty of his crime before the court. Though he may not experience guilt emotionally or morally, he is nevertheless guilty judicially.

Regarding children, however, that guilt is set aside for they have no knowledge of the Law NOR do they have an informed and mature conscience.

JDale

 

HP: So God creates every human guilty from birth. Guilty of what? What is the charge? What is the crime? Where is the disobedience? Where is the justice? Judicial speaks of a court of justice. What justice would condemn and convict all men before they ever had any opportunity to choose anything, let alone sin? What a total blight you paint upon the character and justice of God.

HP: Show me where that is mentioned? Where does it say first that they are guilty, and secondly where does it say that God sets aside their guilt. Again guilt for what? Are they guilty for allowing God to form them as sinners from birth without choice or having anything whatsoever with the state they are born into?

And to think you call that justice, or judicial guilt.

 

Well, there are Reformed people with differening views of Calvinism. I posted a chart not long ago that gives a nice little summary of the different forms of Calvinism. Not all Calvinists believe exactly the same way.

The Supralaspsarian/Infralaspsarian debate is one case. Supralapsarians (high grace) generally believe that election was before the fall, and Infra or sublapsarians (low grace) believe election was after that fall. This is almost exclusivly a debate within Calvinistic Reformed theology.

There are more, I think, but I don't have the time nor the memory to post them now.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

P.S. No informed and consistant Reformed theologian that I know of denies TULIP.