What is sin nature?

Double post

 

Triple.

Huh?

 

HP: When this baby you speak of is able to discern good from evil, is that the age of accountability you speak of or does it come later?

 

HP: I agree that at no time was Jesus not God in some sense, yet it would appear to me that God willingly divested of Himself certain characteristics when He became flesh and dwelt among us. What was Jesus speaking of in this verse? Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

 

Phl 2:7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, [and] coming in the likeness of men

 

HP: Is it possible for an infant to know “evil?” Does not ‘knowing evil’ indicate that the individual understands the intrinsic nature of that which is denoted as ‘evil,’ concepts far removed from infants?

Certainly infants of very small children understand concepts of acceptable or unacceptable behavior, but by ‘what means’ is the question? I suggest that they, at this early age, know about as much of good and evil as my pet does. My pet knows acceptable behavior, NOT by good or evil, but by punishments or rewards. Concepts of ‘evil’ or ‘holy’ are not gained until much later on in their childhood when they come to understand the intrinsic nature of certain commands APART FROM rewards of punishments. It is absurd to consider an infant or even a small child as a moral being capable of discerning evil.

 

Yes, that is it. The Law for sure was around when Paul was a child and before, but did not enter him until a certain time in his life. Then sin revived and he died in trespasses in sin and was in need of a Saviour.

Sorry I was late getting back to you, I had to go take care of a funeral wake service.

BBob,

 

A baby can discern between good and evil at a very early age.
They can deceive their parents in letting them know when they are hungary when they are not.
But that doesn't mean that they can comprehend the gospel--that Christ died and paid the penalty for their sins. When they can understand their need for Christ and the gospel message, then they have reached the age of accountability. And that age is different for every individual. No two people are the same.

 

HP: Where did you come up with this novel idea concerning the age of accountability, in that it involves ‘understanding their need for Christ and the gospel message?’ I say that these two issue have absolutely nothing to do with the age of accountability. The age of accountability has to do with understanding the intrinsic value or worth of a moral command apart from punishment or rewards. One can reach that age in the deepest regions of heathendom, without ever hearing or understanding anything concerning the salvation message or their need for a Savior they have again never even dreamed about. The age of accountability has to do with reaching the threshold of moral agency, the point where one becomes responsible morally before God, does it not?

 

Bump. Still waiting on a reply from DHK

 

It is not novel at all.
Jesus himself taught it.
He said:

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

You must believe on the Son, and then you will have everlasting life.
You must grow to the age where you will have the maturity, the intelligence to be able to understand and believe the gospel, that you may have eternal life.
Jesus said that you must belief. That is the requirement that He made.

Since an infant is incapable of believing then he is not held accountable for the unbelief wherein Jesus says: "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

I did not come up with this. It is not my idea. It is not novel with me. This is what Christ himself taught.
Do you understand the word "believe"?

 

HP: Where did you come up with this novel idea concerning the age of accountability, in that it involves ‘understanding their need for Christ and the gospel message?’ I say that these two issue have absolutely nothing to do with the age of accountability. The age of accountability has to do with understanding the intrinsic value or worth of a moral command apart from punishment or rewards. One can reach that age in the deepest regions of heathendom, without ever hearing or understanding anything concerning the salvation message or their need for a Savior they have again never even dreamed about. The age of accountability has to do with reaching the threshold of moral agency, the point where one becomes responsible morally before God, does it not?

HP: Pardon me DHK, but this verse teaches no such thing as you insinuate. Where in this passage does it teach that the age of accountability has anything to do whatsoever with hearing, understanding, and be able to respond to the gospel message. Your remarks go far beyond making the verse walk on four legs to support a notion. You might as well have used the verse “Jesus wept” to prove your point.

HP: You try to have it both ways. First you tell us that even infants know evil from good and that the grace of God must cover for their sin, (yet another unfounded philosophical position) now you tell us that the infant is incapable of believing. You tell us that the only damning sin is unbelief, and due to the fact that you now say the infant is incapable of belief, how can any sin be attached to them? What do they need the grace of God for, failure to overcome necessitated fate, a feat not even God can accomplish?? If the only damning sin is unbelief, and infants are incapable of belief, they have done nothing to be damned for and as such need no grace to cover for any damning sin.

Show us the Scripture that states or implies that infants need the grace of God to avoid the doom of a sinner. If they are sinners, they are doomed. If they are not doomed it is due to the fact that they are not sinners. If you try and tell us that infants are indeed sinners from birth as original sin implies, then according to the verse in question they have not believed and as such of necessity are doomed. This verse in no way makes any exception for infants. That is shear conjecture on your part to assume what the Scripture does not state or imply. Again either infants are sinners and as such according to this verse doomed, for they have not believed, or they are not sinners, and as such this verse simply does not apply to them.

HP: Christ taught no such thing as you imply. Christ taught the innocence of infants and small children, and that of such is the Kingdom of God. Christ taught that we must become as little children to inherit the Kingdom of God. Scripture no where teaches that we must become as sinful and wicked as they in order to inherit eternal life, as would properly be deduced if in fact children are indeed sinful from birth.

 

Define "believe."

Explain what Jesus meant:

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

HP: Sometimes we can better understand what something is by noting what it cannot be. Belief is not simply a mental assent, or mere head knowledge, for the devils believe and tremble yet I do not believe one would be wise to count them into the kingdom. Belief, as seen in a saving sense, has to incorporate a mental assent but cannot stop there. Belief that saves must incorporate a change of heart and attitude towards sin. It must incorporate feelings of remorse for sin, understanding that one could have done other, and should have done other, than what one did under the very same set of circumstances. Belief, in a saving sense, involves the continued committal of the will in active obedience. One might say of belief as James did of faith. ‘One may say they have belief apart from their works, but I will show you my belief by my works, for belief without works is dead being alone.’ (I am not directing this towards you personally, but rather to illustrate what faith is and is not, what belief saves and what belief will not save.)

Belief, in any saving sense, must incorporate a continuing in the formation of intents consistent with obedience, for faith without works is dead being alone. Belief, in the mere sense of a mental assent, will not save any more than mere faith without the formation of intents consistent with love towards God and our fellowman will save. There is dead faith and dead belief. There is also saving faith and saving belief, both are established and validated as a sure hope for ones eternal salvation as they produce works consistent with their stated end, i.e. salvation. Neither will save being alone.

Both faith and belief take root in our lives by a simple act of the will, but must be maintained by obedience to see ones eternal salvation brought to full and realized fruition eternally. Until we stand before the Lord in final judgment, our sate is best represented as a state of probationary hope. Now we have the earnest of that hope. Subsequent to being found with an Advocate at the judgment, Jesus Christ the Righteous, our hope and earnest of eternal life will be turned to eternal and unchanging sight. He that continues to the end, the same shall be saved.

 

How horrible of you HP, to infer that infants cannot be saved!!!!

 

HP: Why is that so horrible?? Sinners need salvation, not infants or those that have not reached the age of accountability. I believe as you do that infants and those that have never reached the age of accountability will indeed be in heaven or with God in some sense, but Scripture is mute as far as I read it just exactly how God is going to treat them or what place they will play in eternity. Loving, just and fair there is no doubt.

 

You're so very kind.
I am evil for believing the same thing that you do. You attack my position, but in the end you turn around and say that that is the way that you believed all along. Why do I even waste my time?

 

HP: Who said you were evil? We do not believe the same thing. We agree that innocents will not go to hell, but you propose that they need to be saved, or that salvation makes their final end possible, and I believe that they need no salvation for they are not even moral agents and as such have no sin to be saved from. Neither are they righteous by the way. Scripture does not tell us how God is going to treat them or the place in eternal destiny they will have or play. My hope is that they will indeed be in heaven, but again in what state we are simply not told.

 

You have not really been debating any serious theology at all. This is all just a game of semantics to you.