Psalm 58:3 (and babies)

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by rlvaughn, Oct 20, 2002.

  1. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    I am starting a new topic to discuss in more detail a verse that we have discussed on the "How does a baby sin?" topic.
    At least on the surface, this verse appears to say that babies speak lies as soon as they are born. Some have suggested that this may be some kind of idiomatic or figurative reference to the sin nature. I guess it is also possible that one could argue that this only refers to the specific wicked judges that the psalmist is referencing.

    First, let's look at the verse. The wicked are what - estranged, made strange, gone away, alienated, separated. When does this occur - from the womb. They (who? the wicked) do what - go astray, err, wander off. When does this occur - as soon as they be born. In what way - speaking lies. The second sentence repeats and strengthens the case made in the first sentence. So - the wicked are alienated and start going astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. This does not keep it from being progressive. It does identify when it starts. The psalmist makes the case that an active going astray from God occurs at the moment of birth.

    Beginning to try to trace down any idiom in the verse, here a few initial notes: I found "as soon as" 32 times in the Old Testament, and it seems to always refer to something occuring immediately following another event. I found "they go astray" 3 times, and "speaking lies" only this once. This was only running the search in the KJV. Anyone have capability to do a computer search in the Hebrew?

    The teachings of other scriptural principles harmonize with this interpetation:
    1. Death is a result of sin. Babies die. "In Adam all die." "The soul that sinneth it shall die." "...it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment." "The wages of sin is death."
    2. The entire human race is corrupted and in sin. "There is none righteous, no not one..." "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." "The scripture hath concluded all under sin..." Babies are part of all.
    3. All are BY NATURE the children of wrath. "...we...were by nature the children of wrath..." Babies possess the same nature as their parents.

    The NASB translation changes the word order a little and has "speak lies" as an adjective modifying "they" (telling who), instead of an adverb modifying "go astray" (telling how they go astray). Here it is:
    Even if one concludes that the NASB has the preferable translation, the fact still remains that the estrangement and going astray occurs from the womb (as soon as one is born). This is not just a passive possessing of a sin nature, but an active working of the sin nature.
     
  2. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    For flavor, contrast, interest, and further study, here are a few other translations of the Psalm 58:3 :
     
  3. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    AMEN!... Brother Robert I agree with everything you said and the way it was explained!... Brother Glen [​IMG]
     
  4. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Since I have some experience as a mother, I was pretty sure this passage was not something anyone who has ever been around a newborn would take literally the way it is phrased in the English.

    First of all, newborns don't speak.

    Secondly, they have no concept of a lie. They do not have the mental ability to know what a lie is, and their actions are quite sincere and straightforward. If he is tired, he sleeps; hungry or dirty or in pain, he cries; and, when awake, looking around at this new world and trying simply to make some sense of it! There is nothing to lie about!

    Lying usually starts defensively ("Did you take that cookie?" "No!") and often gets confused with the inability to tell reality from imagination ("There's a blue dragon in the tree outside and I'm scared and I don't want to go out!"). Actual manipulative lying, which is the kind I would punish for, is not something I saw ever before the age of three and for the most part not until four or five.

    That's my experience.

    But that only told me there was more going on in that verse than met the eye. So I started looking up the words in the Concordance.

    Lying was lying, no problem.

    But the word translated 'speak' or 'speaking' is dabar, a primary root meaning 'to arrange' and used FIGURATIVELY as 'speak' or 'speaking.' It would be, in other words, the word used in referring to God speaking the worlds into being and also indicating in the word itself that He arranged the entire thing.

    Now, going back to the different kinds of lying -- I would never punish for defensive lying, but would correct it and ask for the truth. I would not punish for imagination, but would talk to the child about what was real and maybe why he was afraid. But manipulative lying -- that was the one that cooked their respective geese.

    And if we consider that that conscious, manipulative lying might be what the Psalmist had in mind, then I can go with this: that as soon as a baby learns to manipulate or 'arrange' his environment, he will. And that is true, to the best of my knowledge, of all babies. Wicked or not! In fact, the child who does not seek to manipulate his environment within a few months of birth is considered to have something wrong medically -- the sweet little ones that just sort of lie there -- something's wrong.

    So I went back to the Psalm and read it in full in a number of translations.

    David is mad. He is using pictures all the way through the Psalm. He speaks of the wicked as having venom. We know they don't literally have venom, but we know what David means. In verse 6 he refers to them as lions and asks God to tear their fangs out. We know they are not lions and they don't have fangs. He speaks of slugs melting away in the sun, and although we all know what he is referring to, they don't melt, actually, but dehydrate.

    All the way through the Psalm, David is furious and using every picture he can think of where these wicked judges are concerned.

    With this in mind, would a proper understanding of the particular verse in question not then be something along the lines of "There was never a time since you were born that you were not rotten to the core. You have been manipulating and arranging things your way since you were able to."

    The idea is clearly that these men never had a time, even in childhood, when they were good. But also keep in mind that David is so angry he is almost spitting. We tend to overstate our case at times like that...
     
  5. Chet

    Chet
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    0
    First let me say that I have a confession to make. I have commented on this passage in the thread dealing with babies sinning. But I am no longer all that confident in what I originally posted. I have yet to come to a conclusion, so perhaps God wants me to lose a bit more sleep over this verse. [​IMG] I have been pondering on this passage for the entire day Sunday, and then again all day today. I have read some commentary's on this passage, though most of what I read does not address the questions in my mind. (this happens to me a lot) And I have read a dozen translations.

    Bro. rlvaughn brought up this passage as evidence that an infant can indeed sin, and that sin is a lie. To me, this is very strong evidence that not only could the Bible be speaking to the issue of a baby sinning... it may well be telling us exactly what that sin is. It has crossed my mind that the very first sin commited by all of us could well be a lie. Laying aside all experiences and human understanding, I am trying to find the answer. I appreciate rlvaughn and Helen for addressing this more in depth. Here are some other translations, from loose translations to more literal.

    TEV
    Evil men go wrong all their lives; they tell lies from the day they are born.

    NET
    The wicked turn aside from birth; liars go astray as soon as they are born.

    ESV
    The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go away from birth speaking lies.

    DARBY
    The wicked go astray from the womb; they err as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

    Just looking at this from a transnational standpoint, excluding the NASB and possibly the NET, it appears to be saying that even in the womb, we are estranged. And even at birth we speak lies. The Darby translation seems to communicate this point clearly, we err as soon as we are born. And a very dynamic translation in the TEV says plainly that they tells lies from the day they are born. I think it is noteworthy to look at two words more closer, as Helen did with one of them. I will quote Spiros Zodhiates for further definition:

    Estranged - err - astray - turn aside
    OT:2114 zuwr (zoor);
    Speaking
    OT:1696 dabar (daw-bar');
    Well this causes me to lean (lean not conclude) in the direction that a baby could sin, and that sin is a lie. Here is why; estranged is a fairly strong word I think. It even is used when speaking of the "other woman" in Proverbs. That is strong. To be a stranger or foreigner in the womb is very condemning language. But notice also what David says here:

    Ps 22:9-10
    Yet you brought me out of the womb;
    you made me trust in you
    even at my mother's breast.
    From birth I was cast upon you;
    from my mother's womb you have been my God.
    NIV

    So David is speaking from a much more positive perspective as he trust in God even at his mothers breast, and from birth was cast upon God. From the womb God was his God.

    But that does not negate Ps. 58:3 does it. Ps. 58:3 is certainly extremely good evidence then of one of two things: A) David is saying we have inherited a sin nature, and lies come even from birth. To me the NASB is translated in that way, as the NET also. OR B) that we are not only born with a sin nature, we are estranged at birth. I can't help but think, because of the Hebrew word, that we are strangers even in the womb.

    Then the word speak. Spiros Zodhiates seems to believe that this word does have a simple meaning of communicate. Now, a baby may not literally speak but it does communicate. And Helen please don't get to upset with me here, but is it possible that a baby may at some point quickly learn to communicate/cry in a certain way just to get attention? Not that he/she is hungry or whatever... This could be the lie.

    Irregardless of whether or not we can see or understand the babies sin nature manifest itself, if this passage of the Bible means what it does appear to say then we would have to forget our experiences and trust the Bible at this point. This does not have to mean a baby is then going to hell or heaven, that could be an issue of accountability. Certainly I don't believe God picks some babies ect... This question can be answered and I am not sure that this passage here in Ps. 58 makes any case for that bad idea.

    Another thought is where do we draw the line? We want to say a Baby does or does not sin, but where is the line. In my research I can't find this line in Scripture. Meaning, at what age then does a baby start to sin? At three months? Four? At one year old? In fact in the 1000 year millennium it is said that an infant will die at age 100! I think perhaps David may be drawing the line. He is removing all doubt of when men go wrong, David's line is at birth even in the womb.

    Here is more passages that may shed light. David said:

    Ps 51:5
    Surely I was sinful at birth,
    sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
    NIV

    David was sinful, at birth.

    Isa 48:8
    You have neither heard nor understood;
    from of old your ear has not been open.
    Well do I know how treacheros you are;
    you were called a rebel from birth.
    NIV

    Here it says we were a rebel at birth.

    I have seriously considered Helen's explanation that this is an idiom. And certainly Psalms is very poetic. To take this book at full fledge wooden literal meaning without considering its poetic style would be indecipherable. Looking at this passage I can't help but think that the poetic language doesn't really begin until verse four. At verse four he starts with the poetic language describing their character of that which he ask, " do they speak justly or uprightly among men? The answer is no... that in their heart they devise injustice, their hands are violence on the earth even from birth. To elaborate David uses poetry starting in verse four, "venom like a snake, ect..."

    I don't know for sure about all my thoughts. But I am going to continue to study this passage, in light of the context of the Bible. And hopefully hear back from both Helen and rlvaughn and others. But if I had to say, then I am leaning (only leaning) toward the idea that the Bible does teach a baby does sin, and this is by way of lies.
     
  6. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    I appreciate your explanation that your experience does not settle the meaning of this verse, but rather just caused you to seek it out concerning this passage.
    I may have confused the issue with the way I have used the word "figurative" at times in the discussion. But I have never contended that the newborn baby stands up, looks his parent in the eye and says, "Hey, I need a diaper change," while all the time his devious little mind is thinking "I just want to be held." In one of the posts on the other thread I stated that I think "speak" is standing in place of the idea of communicating. I will say a little more about the word below.

    But why must we conclude that a baby, or anyone else, must be conscious that he is lying to actually be lying. If I believe that a lie is the truth, does that make it the truth?
    Yes, I agree that "dabar" is the word, though I would disagree somewhat with your definition of it. It most commonly means speak, and not in a figurative sense. Strong's defines it as "to speak, declare, converse, command, promise, warn, threaten..." Its primary translation in the KJV is "to speak". It is translated 1143 times in the KJV (OT) - 840 as speak, 118 as say, 46 as talk, 31 as promise, 25 as tell, 20 as commune, 14 as pronounce, 7 as utter, etc. Utter might be one of the best ways to use it for us to understand a babies communication. CLICK HERE to look at the page that I ran for the information.

    But let us consider it as you have suggested: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, arranging lies." So the baby is guilty of arranging lies from birth. There is still the estrangement, the active going astray, and the fact that they are arranging lies. Is it less sinful to arrange a lie that to speak one?
    I'm not sure I understand you. If I understand you correctly, I basically agree with what you say. But it seems if you are admitting that a baby can sin in manipulating his environment, although possibly not AS SOON AS he is born.
    The majority of translations, at least that I have found so far, favour the same meaning as the King James construction.
    Yet when he says they have venom he is not stating falsely something they do not have, just figuratively. When he compares their ferocity to lions, he is illustrating a truth. We would not say, "oh, they're not really like lions." Why would we think that if "speaking lies" is figurative that he would not be illustrating a truth about babies? Yes, we may say that the speaking is figurative in the sense that "speaking" is not words of a language, but in the sense of uttering or communicating something. But it is not figurative in any sense that does away with the fact that they sin from birth. That would be like saying that since they didn't actually have snakes venom in their mouth, they didn't have any kind of "venom" coming out of their mouth.
    I don't find much to disagree with there. But I assume that you are still moving the starting time a little beyond infancy.
    My understanding of inspiration and inerrancy at this point cause me to stop short of thinking that David could have overstated his case in any manner that would be a false teaching.

    Helen, as I see it, you have made your chief objection to teaching from this verse that babies sin, the fact that "speaking lies" is figurative. But there is much more to deal with in the verse besides that little phrase. The entire picture is corruption from beginning to end. The rest of the language is not just passive. It also harmonizes very well with the rest of the Bible's teaching about man and sin.
     
  7. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    An excellent post, Chet, and thank you for doing your research. The Lord will reward you.

    Cheers, and God bless,

    Jim
     
  8. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    OK, guys, the reason I am still having trouble with the idea of tiny babies being deceptive ('lies' really does sound like speech, so I hope you don't mind the word deceptive... [​IMG] ) is because I have never met even a two or three year old who is sure of the difference between truth and lie, reality and fantasy. It takes a reasonable amount of mental maturity to make the separation.

    And again, it is the law which tells us what a sin is, and Paul says quite clearly that without the law sin is dead. Dead, at the very least, means separated from, and possibly inactive.

    So here is the quandry for me:

    A babe in arms does not have the mental facility to tell the difference between truth and lie.

    A babe in arms reacts to its environment -- reactions are not lies. They are just reactions.

    A babe in arms cries when it is in pain or discomfort. This is not a lie.

    A babe in arms sleeps when tired. This is not a lie.

    A babe in arms is often fascinated by the world around it. There is no lie here.

    So how on earth a baby can lie is really beyond me, and I've been around an awful lot of babies.

    A babe in arms has no concept of the law, and therefore cannot consciously disobey it.

    In short, I don't see where conscious or unconsious lies can be communicated by a baby. I just don't!

    But when I look at the tone of the Psalm, and the other analogies in it, my tendency is to put the first section with the later sections as expressions of David's total anger and disgust, rather than saying something specific about babies.
     
  9. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    Chet, I want to second Jim's statement - I appreciate all the research that went into that post.

    Helen, I hope I can say this with sincerity and without offense - I think one reason you are having so much trouble with this is that you are looking too much at the babies and not enough at the Bible. Or, in other words, it does not matter whether we can either prove or understand how babies sin, IF the Bible says they do. We must look in Psalm 58:3 and other scriptures, not the crib, to see whether these things be so. If the Bible says babies sin - so be it. If the Bible says babies do not sin - so be it. Simple as that. So to me your observations on behaviour of babes are just that - observations. At most they could only make us want to study the issue out in the Bible in order to see if we are clear on the matter. I am not claiming that I can look at a sweet little child in his mother's arms and say, "Look there, he's sinning rights now!" I am saying that if Psalm 58:3 says that a baby starts to go astray as soon as he is born, then a baby starts to go astray as soon as he is born. Simple as that. So that's why I think it is important to look at the words and interpretation of this text.

    You have mentioned the law and the knowledge of it several times in these discussions, and I am a little confused. Now maybe you are saying that sin is not imputed where there is no law, but surely you are not saying sin does not exist at all where there is no knowledge. Would absence of knowledge of the law "thou shalt not kill" mean that it would be ok to murder as long as we don't know the law? Wouldn't murder still be a sin?

    Now back to the text: [1] I have no disagreement that the first section (including verse 3) is an expression of David's anger and disgust. But he can both express that anger and disgust and say something specific about babies at the same time. If not, why not? [2] What in the tone of the Psalm would keep this from saying something specific about babies? Would the Psalmist's use of snake "venom" or "poison" keep him from meaning something specific about the real poison of these men? Should we just view the entire psalm as an expression of anger and disgust without saying anything specific about anything?
     
  10. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sir, I am reasonably sure I am not going to change your mind about any of this, but I do offer this:

    "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness."
    1 John 3:4

    What law does a baby break?

    Point 2 -- I'm not saying David is NOT saying something of substance in this Psalm. What I am saying is that since none of his other descriptions can be taken as literally true here, why are you insisting that his reference to lying from birth is literally true?

    And lastly, if this is all you can find that indicates that babies sin, I'm on safe ground saying no, they not only don't; they can't.
     
  11. Molly

    Molly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2000
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are born with a sin nature,so a baby left on it's own will eventually sin....at some point it will happen.And,plus,a baby is totally self centered from the beginning. So,to me the issue is not if they sin as a baby,but the fact that we believe they will sin because they are a sinner. Noone has to teach the baby to lie,but it will at some point....3,4,15,I don't know,but sin will be evident in their life.

    I just don't get the issue....it seems so simple to me.
     
  12. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    Nor do I expect to change your mind. That does not keep me from believing that this is an important verse and an issue worthy of discussion. To me teaching that babies are sinless has very serious ramifications.
    "For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; Romans 2:12."
    Speaking lies, if nothing else. I think the discussion has moved beyond continuing to ask this question on to asking whether Psalm 58:3 is so.
    I cannot agree that none of his other statements can be taken as literally true. It was literally true that they had venom like a snake. It was literally true that they were ravenous beasts like lions. It was literally true that they would hearken to the voice of charmers. Even though David is using expressions, he is speaking the truth. If we take speaking lies as figurative, of what is it a figure? David does not give a "figure" of something passive, but of something active. Or if I, for arguments sake, were to spiritualize the "speaking lies" part completely out, I am still left with the fact that they are estranged, and that estrangement goes all the way back to the time of their birth.
    Why are you on safe ground if one verse says that babies sin? How many do we need? Nevertheless, that is not all I can find or have found. I mentioned several things in my first post that you have not addressed that I will reiterate. "All have sinned, etc." What part of this excludes babies? "We were by nature the children of wrath." Are babies something by nature that the rest of the human race aren't? "The soul that sinneth it shall die." "In Adam all die." Why do babies die?

    Consider also:
    1. All people who are subject to death are in Adam. (I Cor. 15:22)
    2. All infants are subject to death. (e.g. Ex. 1:16ff; I Sam. 12:18, etc.)
    3. Therefore, all infants are in Adam.

    1. All who die are in Adam. (I Cor. 15:22)
    2. All who are in Adam are sinners. (Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:3)
    3. Therefore, all who die are sinners.

    1. All who are subject to death are sinners. (see above)
    2. All infants are subject to death.
    3. Therefore, all infants are sinners.
     
  13. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    We've been through this before, but just to recap and then I'm finished with this one:

    Romans 7:4-11, with comments and bold added.

    "So, my brothers, you also died ot the law through the body of Christ, tht you might belong to another, tohim who was raised from the dead, in order tht we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

    What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law.

    (a baby cannot know what sin is)

    For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

    (This is an interesting example for Paul to use, for the first thing a toddler does is grab what is his and want what the other kid has to be his, too. This is probably the earliest sin, and it is so 'natural' for a toddler to be grabby that sometimes we never even think of it as anything other than natural behavior. The child himself does not consider it bad or a sin, but only an expression of himself in getting what he wants and controlling the world around him as fully as he can. Coveting is the first element of sin I personally have seen in children, so it is interesting to me that Paul chose this earliest one as an example here.)

    But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from the law, sin is dead.

    (This means, at the very minimum, that sin is powerless to separate a child from God until the child knows the law. The sin nature of the child may be expressed, but sin itself cannot 'strike back' separating the child from God until the law is known.)

    Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

    (There are only two possible times Paul was apart from law -- before he knew it and after he was saved and rescued from it. The earlier time is the time which has to be referred to here. Paul states he was alive and then he died. He does not state that he thought he was alive, but that he WAS alive. The chronological order here is extremely clear: 1. Paul was alive, 2. The law came into his life, 3. Sin then sprang to life, whereas before it had been there, but dead and powerless to hurt him, 4. Since the wage of sin is death, Paul then died. Paul was a Jew of Jews, a Pharisee of Pharisees. He had thus been bar mitzvah'd around the age of 12, 13, or as late as 14. That means he knew the law then, and knew it well, as was required of young men. Thus, the time before law came into his life had to be before that, as a child. That means that it was as a child, and therefore as a baby, that he was not yet spiritually dead.)

    I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

    (Spiritual death did not come until the commandment came, i.e. was made known to him.)

    For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

    (And, finally, he could not have died unless he was first alive.)

    ===========

    It cannot get clearer than that!

    If you want to take it totally literally that the wicked speak lies from birth, then you are going to have to go with the speaking thing, too. And babies don't speak.

    They cry when they are upset. There is no way on this earth for a baby to tell lie. David was indicating something a little different in that Psalm, as the tone of the entire Psalm shows.

    And yes, while infants are born as sinners, they are not dead YET, even though they are subject to death. The death sentence is there, but not carried out, according to Paul, until the law is known and sin then 'springs to life' fostering deliberate disobedience.

    Paul is extraordinarily clear there.

    Knowing that this won't sway you, I am hoping it will help some of those reading to see clearly what the Bible is actually saying.

    [ October 25, 2002, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]
     
  14. Scott_Bushey

    Scott_Bushey
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen writes:
    And again, it is the law which tells us what a sin is, and Paul says quite clearly that without the law sin is dead. Dead, at the very least, means separated from, and possibly inactive.

    And this:

    (There are only two possible times Paul was apart from law -- before he knew it and after he was saved and rescued from it. The earlier time is the time which has to be referred to here. Paul states he was alive and then he died. He does not state that he thought he was alive, but that he WAS alive. The chronological order here is extremely clear: 1. Paul was alive, 2. The law came into his life, 3. Sin then sprang to life, whereas before it had been there, but dead and powerless to hurt him, 4. Since the wage of sin is death, Paul then died. Paul was a Jew of Jews, a Pharisee of Pharisees. He had thus been bar mitzvah'd around the age of 12, 13, or as late as 14. That means he knew the law then, and knew it well, as was required of young men. Thus, the time before law came into his life had to be before that, as a child. That means that it was as a child, and therefore as a baby, that he was not yet spiritually dead.)

    I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

    (Spiritual death did not come until the commandment came, i.e. was made known to him.)

    Matthew Henry writes in regards to your idea......

    Further, to clear this, he shows that sin did not commence with the law of
    Moses, but was in the world until, or before, that law; therefore that law of
    Moses is not the only rule of life, for there was a rule, and that rule was
    transgressed, before the law was given. It likewise intimates that we
    cannot be justified by our obedience to the law of Moses, any more than
    we were condemned by and for our disobedience to it. Sin was in the
    world before the law; witness Cain's murder, the apostasy of the old world,
    the wickedness of Sodom. His inference hence is, Therefore there was a
    law; for sin is not imputed where there is no law. Original sin is a want of
    conformity to, and actual sin is a transgression of, the law of God:
    therefore all were under some law. His proof of it is, Death reigned from
    Adam to Moses, v. 14. It is certain that death could not have reigned if sin
    had not set up the throne for him. This proves that sin was in the world
    before the law, and original sin, for death reigned over those that had not
    sinned any actual sin, that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
    transgression, never sinned in their own persons as Adam did — which is
    to be understood of infants, that were never guilty of actual sin, and yet
    died, because Adam's sin was imputed to them. This reign of death seems
    especially to refer to those violent and extraordinary judgments which
    were long before Moses, as the deluge and the destruction of Sodom,
    which involved infants. It is a great proof of original sin that little
    children, who were never guilty of any actual transgression, are yet liable
    to very terrible diseases, casualties, and deaths, which could by no means
    be reconciled with the justice and righteousness of God if they were not
    chargeable with guilt.

    Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
    Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
    Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
    Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ,

    [ October 25, 2002, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]
     
  15. John3v36

    John3v36
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strong's Lexicon

    Result of search for "3584":
    3584 kachash kaw-khash' a primitive root; to be untrue, in word (to lie, feign, disown) or deed (to disappoint, fail, cringe):--deceive, deny, dissemble, fail, deal falsely, be found liars, (be-)lie, lying, submit selves.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3585 kachash kakh'-ash from 3584; literally, a failure of flesh, i.e. emaciation; figuratively, hypocrisy:--leanness, lies, lying.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3586 kechash kekh-awsh' from 3584; faithless:--lying.
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    Romans 5
    12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
    13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    Personally (although infants come equipped with a sin nature) I believe an infant is incapable of committing sin until the faculty of discernment between good and evil is fully developed.
    Somewhere between 1-2 years old a baby appears to have the capability of anger and a kind of temper tantrum (we've had 11 kids).
    Even this however (IMO) while technically sin, is not imputed because of the Romans 5 passage above.
    Also we are not the judge. Only God knows the heart of an individual and at what age the capability to sin is fully devoped to incur the guilt of the wilful sin.
    In the meantime, I believe (my opinion) that God regenerates the little one at an untimely death (which was all within the umbrella of the Sovereignty of God anyway).

    Matthew 19
    13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
    14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
    15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

    HankD

    [ October 25, 2002, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  17. Scott_Bushey

    Scott_Bushey
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uhh Hank,
    I think you forgot the qualifying verse that follows......
    You site:
    Romans 5
    12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
    13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    However...............Never the less.........

    Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

    ~Even still.......death reigned, even over them who had not yet sinned..........
     
  18. Chet

    Chet
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen

    I am afraid I disagree with you here. It seems that a lot of your argument is based on your experience ] with babies, or your human logic as to if baby can sin. Also I feel that your understanding of Romans 7 and the law is not correct.

    I am really confused as to your point that a toddler does sin, but a baby does not. What real difference does it make if a baby sins at age 1 second or if a toddler sins at age 3 years old? Both have a sin nature, both are going to die, both are in Adam. If a toddler recognizes and understand the "law" of lying - then does indeed tell a lie, will the toddler then have the fear of going to hell? No, neither are going to hell. The argument of a baby sinning or not is different than that of accountability.

    I am glad John3v16 has given us the meaning of lying. It is easy to see that even the smallest deceit could be called a lie. I say this because YES I take David very literally when he says plainly that at birth we are estranged, and at birth we speak lies. Speaking is literal also. As already given, the definition of speaking is to communicate. A baby DOES communicate. David is saying so. What is your understanding of David when he says we are estranged? Forget the lie, what does estranged mean?

    Even though it does speak volumes. I don't believe for a minute that anyone is building a doctrine around this one verse. Robert has provided good evidence from other passages, that can't be ignored. i.e. the bible says ALL have sinned. A baby is a person.

    Concerning Romans 7. It is clear from the context that Paul is teaching that we are not under the law. He says that we are dead to the law. Meaning that it has no bearing our life as a new testament believer. He teaches that while we were controlled by the sinful nature the sinful passions were aroused by the law. The law caused a person to want to sin. Tell a kid he can't do something and as soon as your gone he wants to do it. Paul argues that this is certainly not the fault of the law! The law is holy, and righteous. But we are released from the law and its arousal to sin. We are released so that we may serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. In Galatians and in James the Bible teaches that to be a debtor to just one law means we are in debt to it all. In Christ I am not subject to the law any more! Yet I still sin. There was 2000 years before the law was given, yet they still sinned. Paul goes on to teach that apart from the law sin is dead. This does not mean that sin doesn't exist when there is on law, but when there is no law there is less sin, because the law arouses sin in us.

    According to David we lie right from birth. Even if he is not speaking literally (which I think he is) his non-literal language would be communicating a literal truth.
     
  19. Scott_Bushey

    Scott_Bushey
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hank,
    Based upon your previous post:
    13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    Scott inquires:
    When was there not the law of God?
     
  20. Son of Consolation

    Son of Consolation
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    0
    It would be interesting for you theologians to point out in your research the difference between the inherited Adamic nature to sin, and the sin imputed to the infant. [​IMG]

    [ October 25, 2002, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Barnabas ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...