Did Adam reach age of responsibility before

Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
--Satan works in the children of disobedience--from what age? Even from infancy.

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
--We have a sin nature from infancy. We are children of God's wrath. We inherit a sin nature. It is innate within us. How clear this teaching is!

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
--No exceptions, not even infants. There is none righteous.

Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
--No one, by their own nature, understands. They don't, by their own nature, seek after God. They all have a sin nature--all of them, even infants.

Romans 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
--There is no one that does good, no, not one, not even an infant. This is very emphatic--not even an infant--no one!

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
--This is one of those verses where all means all speaking of the human race. There are no exceptions because all have a sin nature. We sin because we have a nature, inherited by Adam, that gives us the propensity to sin.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
--David in a psalm of great repentance points to the point of his conception, the time spent in his mother's womb, and says that he was a sinner even then. He is saying that he was born with a sin nature. His mother did not wrong. He is repenting of his own wrong, and points to the awful sin nature that he has inherited, the wickedness of sin that dwells in his own being.

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--Children are born with that same sin nature. As soon as they are born they need to be taught the truth, for it is in their nature to tell lies.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
--God makes no exception here. Not even the heart of an infant is innocent. Our hearts are deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know them? The answer is: only God.

All are born morally wicked and estranged from God.

 

Just like it never says 3 wise men or kings, yet it's been drummed into us.

 

Adam was the great buck passer. I believe he said, it was the woman You gave me.

 

HP: Are you a ‘child’ of God or can we be called as adults, ‘children’ of God? Seriously DHK, the word ‘child’ or ‘children’ cannot be extrapolated into support for the doctrine of original sin. Let’s start with this one passage and see if we can come to some agreement on it and the word ‘children’ or ‘child’ before I proceed to the next.

Here is a verse for our mutual edification: 1Co 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

 

1Cor.14:20 notwithstanding, the verse is all inclusive with no age barriers. It does not exclude children or infants. All are children of disobedience. All are born into Satan's family. Satan works in them all. They are not part of God's family and thus need to be born again. These children of disobedience need to become children of obedience through the new birth.

 

Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

HP: This verse simply states that we all were sinners when we walked according to the course of this world. It also states that that same spirit works in “the children of disobedience.” Tell us DHK, what disobedience is an infant guilty of???

The only way one can read into this verse original sin or moral depravity from birth is to apply the presupposition of the same to this verse apart from any justification to do so.

 

You can't ignore the rest of Scripture which tells you what they are guilty of. They are guilty of sin from their birth. Why? Because they are born with a sin nature. It is as simple as that. It is inherited. "They walk according to the prince of the power of the air." You either believe that statement or you don't. It is that simple.

 

HP: If you cannot prove the point you are trying to make from the passage of Scripture you set forth as evidence, what validity can be garnered by the remark concerning the ‘rest of Scripture??”

Infants guilty for being born with a nature they had absolutely no involvement or choice in, neither ordered their birth? Guilty of being necessitated from birth by their Creator as a sinner? That has God the Creator of sin, a most absurd and wicked deduction at best. Not only is God shown by your position as the Creator of sin, but then He punishes some of those He created as sinners for all eternity for something He is responsible for creating. Some reason and justice that depicts.

You paint a picture of a God that creates an infant as a sinner, and then condemns them to an eternal hell for being created as He so chose. And you desire to tell us the God you are depicting is a loving and just God? You need to return to the drawing board of reason and Scripture DHK. Oh yea, and then he picks a few names out of the hat to save again apart from any thing they have done, right? Sounds precisely like the Total depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption or limited atonement, irresistible grace, and last but not least, OSAS of ‘TULIP’ I have been familiar with most of my adult life DHK. Have you been reading Augustine and Calvin lately? I can tell you one thing that you can take to the bank, someone you have been reading or listening to has.

 

Writings of the Early Church Fathers are not in themselves doctrinal proof since they are not scripture, however, the ECF's are witnesses to the Christian faith as it has been handed down and developed in the Church. Take a look at what St. Iranaeus wrote:

'....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....WE, however, are all FROM him; and as WE are FROM him, WE have INHERITED his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam, WE offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning.' (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3)

 

Also, support from TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)

'Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole world, through whom MAN was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. On ACCOUNT of his transgression MAN was given over to death; and the WHOLE HUMAN RACE, which was INFECTED by his SEED, was made the TRANSMITTER of condemnation. (The Testmiony of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)
"Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection" [1 Cor 15:21]. Here, by the word MAN, who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM, then, as in the flesh we were made to DIE IN ADAM, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ. Otherwise, if the coming to life in Christ were not to take place in that same substance in which WE DIE IN ADAM, the parallel were imperfect.' (Against Marcion 5:9:5, c. 210 AD)

 

Mary is NOT the cause of my salvation or anyone else. Jesus is the only "cause" of my salvation.


Catholics.....:BangHead:

 

And not to sidetract this thread and turn it into a debate about infant baptism but look at what Origen wrote:

ORIGEN (c. 244 AD)
EVERYONE in the world FALLS PROSTRATE under SIN. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling [Psalm 145:14]. IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)
EVERY SOUL that is BORN into flesh is SOILED by the filth of wickedness and SIN....And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given EVEN TO INFANTS. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which REQUIRED a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem SUPERFLUOUS. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)
The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism EVEN TO INFANTS. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the INNATE STAINS OF SIN, which must be WASHED AWAY through water and the Spirit [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)

 

Amy said: "Mary is NOT the cause of my salvation or anyone else. Jesus is the only "cause" of my salvation. Catholics!"

Wow, I was just quoting St. Iranaeus in the year 180 AD. I thought y'all didn't believe the Catholic Church was around that early! I also think you read to much into the statement. I believe Iranaeus was stating that by her saying the perfect 'yes' to God she became the vehicle in which our salvation was delivered to the world.

 

The rest of Scripture you won't even touch. I posted nine references. You only referred to one of them. You neglected the rest. Why?
I can still refer to many more. Why not deal with the "rest of Scripture?" The Bible does not contradict itself.

Either you believe the Bible or you don't. If you allow your emotions to rule you rather than your intellect than you will never believe.

That is a terrible accusation you make against a loving God, who does know what he is doing.

Again, you have made a baseless accusation based on emotion and not on fact.

I quoted Scripture. You come back with your own emotional assumptions and conjectures. Not much debate here is there?

I didn't paint a picture of God. I quoted nine Scriptural passages, out of which you referred to one. From there you have gone on to make some false assumptions that I have never said.

I am not a Calvinist and I don't even believe in Total Depravity. Seems like you don't even know much about Calvinism. But you do have a lot of false accusations to make based on your emotions and not on Scripture. Why not try to answer the Scripture I posted instead of a display of your emotions.

 

Amy, my purpose in posting the quotes from the ECF's was not to derail the thread. I know there is content in these writings that does not support Baptist doctrine. However, I wanted to show support that the doctrine of 'Original Sin' did not originate with St. Augustine but can be traced back to the earliest times of the Church.

 

Here is one more which is, IMHO, solid support for the ECF's holding the doctrine of 'Original Sin' dating before St. Augustine:

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)
'If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the REMISSION OF THEIR SINS is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an INFANT not be held back, who, having but recently been BORN, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], EXCEPT THAT, BORN OF THE FLESH ACCORDING TO ADAM, HE HAS CONTRACTED THE CONTAGION OF THAT OLD DEATH FROM HIS FIRST BEING BORN. For this very reason does he approach more easily to receive the REMISSION OF SINS: because the SINS FORGIVEN HIM are NOT his OWN but THOSE OF ANOTHER [i.e. inherited from Adam]. (Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)

 

HP: You are not being intellectually honest DHK. There has not been one Scripture posted to my knowledge that I have not dealt with directly in the past, just for starters. I will be happy to proceed once again to the others when we settle some issues that need to be settled with the first one you set forth.

If you refuse to admit to the proper usage of the words ‘child’ or ‘children,’ in this passage, trying to make the mention of them walk on all four legs in favor of Augustinian original sin concerning literal physical infants, why move on when you when you cannot even admit to the reality of their usage in Scripture as well as common parlance?

The passage mentioned: Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:”

There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that the word ‘children’ here is making mention of infants or of original sin. There is absolutely no indication in this passage even of any notion of universal sin period, or that all have sinned, ALTHOUGH…. in this dispensation I would say that sin is universal and clearly all have sinned. I still would be going beyond Scripture by making either of those points from this verse. Others verses would show those truths clearly without massaging this verse beyond reason to establish those points.

1Co 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

 

Lori4dogs, when you accept the presupposition of Augustinian original sin, you can apply it to almost any notation you so desire. DHK is a master of that even with Scripture as I have just pointed out concerning his first passage mentioned.

 

Lori4dogs, there is no collaboration of evidence period that early Christian fathers prior to Augustine held to any such notion as original sin. Augustine is noted as the father of the doctrine of original sin by scholars that themselves might even accepted OS to be so. One thing is for certain, no one in the Church prior to the rule of Augustine was forced to honor or believe in any such doctrine as the doctrine of original sin. Pelagius made that point as I recall, and was exonerated by at least two councils of the charges levied by Augustine.

Even in the quotes you mention there is no indication of original sin. Being made the ‘cause of death’ can speak to a physical consequence of sin, and not to a moral contagion from birth on the order of OS as Augustine developed it.

 

No, I am honest. This thread was just started. You have not dealt with any of the Scriptures I have posted except one. You are not being honest. We are not speaking of threads in years gone by. The readers are not going to dig up the archives, and neither am I. This debate is one that is being held in the present not in the past. It is in this thread not in the archives. Your argument is frivolous. The fact is that you purposely ignore Scripture.

I never said that the word "child or children" exclusively meant child or infant. I said that it included infants for it is a word used for mankind, infants included. If the word was mankind (a synonym), it would still include infants. They belong to the human race.
Secondly, I don't take my views from Augustine and never have. I take them from the Bible. There are some on this board that are trying to show you that, but you are turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to their efforts.

The phrase is inclusive of infants just as "mankind" is inclusive of children and infants. They are human aren't they?

That is right--all have sinned. Why? All have a sin nature; that is why. Man sins because he has a sin nature. He is prone to sin.

And other verses do. So why just pick out this one. Why not discuss all the ones posted. I did not just post one verse.