Rom 2:14
for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
Rom 2:15
who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves [their] thoughts accusing or else excusing [them])
There must have been a time in Paul's life in which he did not know the law.
This was probably when he was quite young.
But, when he learned the law, and in the context he is speaking of the ten commandments generally and he specifies the law "thou shalt not covet", and begin to understand the reach of that command, he discovered that his heart was full of covetousness.
In fact, knowing what covetousness was provoked him to more covetousness.
That is why he says later that throug the knowledge of the law comes sin.
Paul, while in his lost condition, did not see himself "dead in trespasses and sins", but "alive".
But when the commandment came, drivin home by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, sin "revived", was born heavily upon his conscience, which rendered the old man dead, making the man conscious of being dead and trespasses and sins. Therefore, the law did its work - it revealed the sinfulness of the man, and rendered him hopeless before the law, making his only hope to be in the righteousness of Christ.
Yes, but let's also bring the passage to its stated conclusions.
1)
Paul was not spiritually dead until the "law."
2)
It was the "nature," not the "sin guilt" nor "original sin," that was latent (it was instinctive) in him.
He sinned as a "natural man" in the natural course of life through, in this case, "covetousness" and then realized he was a sinner by nature.
And now, having chosen to sin, he is a sinner "at heart."
3)
We are "lost" by hearing and comprehending the "law;" we are saved SIMILARLY by hearing and comprehending the "gospel."
Both are free applications of "spiritual rules" to known facts.
We are "born again" in heart then by choosing salvation in Christ.
4)
JD mentions the idea that "sin revived" means that Paul was already a sinner, just unaware of it.
And truly, it is the by conviction of the Holy Spirit that we "see" that we have sinned.
However, I prefer to see it as the "seed of the serpent" reviving -- the seed that natural Adam caused to be "planted" in all of us through physical male descendancy.
To say that we are "sinners from birth" is merely to say that we are born of natural seed --- vs. Jesus, who was born of supernatural seed.
This brings us to the necessity of being "born again" to supernatural seed ourselves, right?
I see it as where there is no law, there is no transgression. When the Law entered Paul, it taught him that what he had done was sin, and that he was a sinner now that he was conscious of it.
And that tells me the infants are "innocent" of 2 counts:
1) No sin guilt and 2) no consciousness of sin.
So it doesn't matter what they DON'T know about Christ.
To me, if either 1 or 2 was true, they would be condemned.
That's a "theologian's view" of the situation.
But if you were born dead, then salvation would be the first -- not the second -- birth.
To show you how effective it is as a "theologian's view," just consider that 2 very disparate denominations have profited mightily by baptizing poor, sinful infants into the kingdom as soon as possible after birth so mommy and daddy could be sure they would be in heaven if they died.
Passing strange to them, isn't it (?), that David had no such fears after the death of his infant son.
He quit fasting and declared that he would go to his son one day.
No. When a person is born physically, that is the first birth. When they are born spiritually, that is the second birth. All people are born dead in sin. For instance, David says "in sin did my mother conceive me".
The fact that people are born the first time spiritually dead is why one "must be born again".