Original sin is passed through the father; Jesus had no human father and thus was born sinless. Jesus received His human nature from Mary, but He received His divine nature through God the Holy Spirit. We inherit sin from the father because of Adam and not Eve. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." (Rom. 5:12)

Biblical support of our sinful nature passed down through the father. Heb. 7:9-10, "And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." Original sin is not a physical corruption, but a moral and spiritual corruption.

It could be compared to the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity which claims that sin has touched all parts of what a person is (i.e. heart, mind, soul, will, thoughts, desires, etc.)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 24, 2003

Answers

The following points refute the FALSE DOCTRINE of original sin: The Bible definition of sin refutes this false doctrine.

1 Jn. 3:4 - Sin is an act. It is something that is done. It is not inherited.

Jas. 1:13-15 - process of becoming a sinner, Lust + enticement = temptation; Temptation + action = sin and spiritual death.

What child meets this pattern at birth?

The Bible teaches individual accountability and responsibility. (Ezek. 18:20; Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10). Small children are portrayed in the Bible as being Innocent, pure, and free from sin. (Mt. 18:1-14; Psa. 127:3; Deut. 1:39; 2 Sam. 12:22-23; Heb. 12:9).

The Bible process of becoming a Christian and having sins forgiven excludes small children and infants.

Infant baptism is UNKNOWN in the Bible.

Infants DO NOT inherit sin (Ezek. 18:20) and they are NOT accountable (Deut. 1:39).

Bible baptism is preceded by teaching, faith, repentance and confession (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; Mt. 28:18-20; Acts 8:26-39).

Jesus' description of a person who is a good hearer in the parable of the sower in Lk. 8:11-15 is in conflict with the idea of being totally depraved before conversion. Jesus said that it is possible to have "an honest and good heart" prior to even hearing the word of God.

The Bible teaches: Have "gone astray" - - NOT born astray - - (Isa. 53:6). Have "gone out of the way" - - NOT born out of the right way - - (Rom. 3:12). Have "become unprofitable" - - NOT born unprofitable - - (Rom. 3:12). Man's heart is evil "from his youth" - - NOT his birth - - (Gen. 8:21).

Passages that denominations pervert:

Rom. 5:12 - - All suffer death as a consequence of Adam's sin [DEATH] but not guilt and corruption.

Eph. 2:1 - - not born "dead" - - spiritual death is the result of committing sin - - (Jas. 1:13-15; 1 Jn. 3:4).

Eph. 2:3 - - "nature" by "disobedience" as in verse 2 not by birth.

Psa. 58:3 - - "go astray" - - not born astray - - could "speak lies".

Psa. 51:5 - - refers to mother at conception not David at birth - - the NIV perverts this verse in translation.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), July 24, 2003.

Kevin, Infants die. If they are so perfect as you say, they wouldn't die. Physical & Spiritual death is a result of sin (Romans 5:12; 6:23). Death only comes upon those who have sinned. Since infants die, they must be sinners.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 24, 2003.

Genesis 3:17

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

3:19

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

-- ___ (__@__.__), July 25, 2003.

David,

You wrote, "Kevin, Infants die. If they are so perfect as you say, they wouldn't die."

No David, once again you do err not knowing the truth. As a matter of fact, we ALL die because of the CONSEQUENCES of Adam's sin. We DO NOT inherit his sin because if you will only read Ezekiel 18:20 it PLAINLY states, "The SOUL WHO SINS SHALL DIE. The SON SHALL NOT BEAR THE GUILT OF THE FATHER, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the WICKEDNESS OF THE WICKED SHALL BE UPON HIMSELF."

You wrote, "Physical & Spiritual death is a result of sin (Romans 5:12; 6:23). Death only comes upon those who have sinned. Since infants die, they must be sinners."

David, please tell me what your definition is of the meaning of sin? When you give your definition, please show how the sin of Adam can be transferred all the way down to an infant who was just born.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), July 25, 2003.

Kevin,

The bible never teaches that we go to hell for Adams sin. We are all sinners by nature. Stop the nonsense that we are born perfect. Yes, the reason a baby goes to heaven is that it cannot willfully transgress Gods' law.

Also, if we are born perfect, don’t you think that out of billions of people a few could manage to stay sinless?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 04, 2003.

Kevin wrote "David, please tell me what your definition is of the meaning of sin? When you give your definition, please show how the sin of Adam can be transferred all the way down to an infant who was just born."

Did you not read the original question? Sin is inherited from the father, which is why Jesus was born sinless (since Jesus did not have a biological father)...Not because Mary was sinless and all that other nonsense. God was his Father (where he got his divine nature), Mary was his mother (where he got his human nature).

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 04, 2003.

David,

You wrote, "The bible never teaches that we go to hell for Adams sin."

Well, we have one thing that we agree on!!!

You wrote, "We are all sinners by nature."

No David, we are NOT "sinners by nature" as you state. If this is the case, please provide scriptural proof for this assertion that we are "sinners by nature".

You wrote, "Stop the nonsense that we are born perfect."

I did NOT say we are born "perfect". I have said and will continue to say that we are born "without sin" which is EXACTLY what the word of God teaches.

You wrote, "Yes, the reason a baby goes to heaven is that it cannot willfully transgress Gods' law."

Once again, a CORRECT statement becuase a baby has NO sin!!!

You wrote, "Also, if we are born perfect, don’t you think that out of billions of people a few could manage to stay sinless?"

Not at all. What does the word of God say? Go back and re-read Romans 3:23 and Galatians 3:22.

David wrote, "Did you not read the original question? Sin is inherited from the father, which is why Jesus was born sinless (since Jesus did not have a biological father)...Not because Mary was sinless and all that other nonsense. God was his Father (where he got his divine nature), Mary was his mother (where he got his human nature)."

David, go back and re-read Ezekiel 18:4 and Ezekiel 18:20. No person is born with sin, since sin is the transgression of the law, which baby is guilty of doing this?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 04, 2003.

Kevin: God was his Father (where he got his divine nature), Mary was his mother (where he got his human nature).

This is why Catholics perceive Mary as being Immaculate and Jesus as being divine. This would take the confusion out of the issue.

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 04, 2003.

rod,

There is NO such thing as Immaculate as what you ascribe to Mary. Mary was NOT without sin for the word of God does NOT even hint at such a thing.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 04, 2003.

Yes I KNOW that there is no SUCH thing as Immaculate Mary IN your doctrine, KEVIN. But, there is ALSO no such THING as sin in instrumental music in OTHER doctrines.

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 05, 2003.

rod,

It is NOT my doctrine, but that you claim when you say "Yes I KNOW that there is no SUCH thing as Immaculate Mary IN your doctrine, KEVIN." for it is the doctrine of Christ which knows NO SUCH THING of the Immaculate Mary.

You wrote, "But, there is ALSO no such THING as sin in instrumental music in OTHER doctrines."

These "OTHER doctrines" which claim that instrumental music is not a sin when used in worship are NOT in accordance with the word of God and are to be REJECTED.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 05, 2003.

"The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." (Genesis 8:21 NIV)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 05, 2003.

David,

The verse you quoted does NOT state that one is IN ORIGINAL SIN from childhood. It merely states that "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood."

That is why God said in Proverbs 22:15, "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him."

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 05, 2003.

If we are not born sinners, why must we be born again?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 09, 2003.

ALL of creation has been subjected to the consequences of sin. Do animals sin? No, but they bear the consequences of sin, because "Sin entered the world through one man, Adam." And that sin has tainted ALL of creation.

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. Romas 8: 19-23

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 09, 2003.

If we are not born sinners, why must we be born again?

Because of this very reason, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Rom 3:23).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 11, 2003.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed,but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." 1 Peter 1:23 / KJV

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

Copied from another thread,

Rod wrote, "Kevin Here is a simple question about birth into this world and Salvation: If there isn't "original sin", what happens to the infant that grows and dies without accepting Christ?"

An infant that grows into adulthood and dies without accepting Christ will DIE in their sins.

Rod wrote, "And, why would that infant ever need to accept Christ at some point in its life?"

Because at some point in their life, they will SIN and it is SIN that separates one from God.

Rod wrote, "What happens to an infant that dies prior to "accepting" Christ?"

They are saved because they have NO sin that needs to be washed away.

Your joking about my using CAPITAL letters was cute, but will NOT change the way I write regardless of whether you like it or not.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 04, 2004.

YOUR use of CAPITAL letters is rather inconsequential to your POINTS. But, there is a difference. Zarove's transposition of words is without delibertate intensions, while your STYLE of typing leads with premeditation and purpose. Let's just call it your indiosyncrasy. I would not ask for you to change your STYLE. I would ask for Zarove to cure his, but such things are in God's hands, not mine nor Zarove's. Your STYLE is in your hands, Kevin. But, you wounldn't be Kevin if you changed your STYLE. Cute? well, we all have our indiosyncrasies and I hope that we take them with humor or good strong medicine.

It seems that some call that sin condition, "Sin Nature". Where does that "Sin Nature" come from if man has no "Original Sin"?

................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 04, 2004.

The discussion here continues from this thread: Is Baptism Required for Salvation? Part One of Five.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), May 04, 2004.

bump

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 07, 2004.

Exodus 20 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 21, 2004.

How about continuing to the next verse David:

Exodus 20:6, "but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

Exodus 20:5 does not teach the original sin doctrine.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), July 25, 2004.

"Exodus 20:6, "but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments." "

Do you keep his commandments because you love him?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

Also,

How do we come to "love him"? Can we choose to love God? btw, that "you" was not directed at Kevin. It is more of a "do we.."

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

David,

What does your quote: "Do you keep his commandments because you love him?" have anything to do with the original sin doctrine???

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), July 25, 2004.

Well,

Kevin,

How does your verse not teach "original sin" ?? You left me hanging there..

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

David,

We must have posted at the same time, please delete this post and my previous post to you...

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), July 25, 2004.

David,

For your verse to be true, it would have to be from the beginning of creation all the way through the present and not just on those to the third and fourth generations. I posted the next verse as a contrast to your verse because if God shows mercy to some (i.e. doesn't count original sin against them), then He is a respecter of persons.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), July 25, 2004.

If the doctrine of original sin is true, then please explain how the Jews were cleansed in the Old Testament???

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), July 25, 2004.

What do you mean by "cleansed" ??

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

And what do you mean by "respecter of persons."??? You keep bringing that up..

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

What I mean by "cleansed" is how the Jews were able to get rid of their original sin.

What I mean by God is no respecter of persons means that God does not deal with anyone differently. In other words there is no partiality with God. Everyone is treated the same way.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), July 26, 2004.

David, as for the "respector of persons" thing, I think Kevin is referring to this passage in Romans 2.

(KJV)
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 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;

NIV: 11For God does not show favoritism.

NAS: 11 For (22) there is no partiality with God.

NAS also cross-referenced to these passages:

Deuteronomy 10:17 "(1) For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the (2) Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God (3) who does not show partiality nor (4) take a bribe.

Acts 10:34 (1) Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that (2) God is not one to show partiality,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.

Emily,

You are correct. Thank you!!!

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), July 26, 2004.

bump for David...

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), August 01, 2004.

The Old Testament Saints were certainly not saved by their obedience to the faith, as the Bible says that is an impossibility.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 02, 2004.

Was God's love in Romans 9:13 unconditional or conditional?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 02, 2004.

David,

You didn't answer the question. How were the Jews in the Old Testament able to be cleansed of their "original sin"???

Romans 9:13 has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), August 03, 2004.

The Jews are cleansed from original sin the same we are--through the blood of Messiah--they looked forward in faith., we look back in faith, to that cross.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 03, 2004.

I asked this question about "original sin" on another board and here was an interesting response:

original sin?

great question. I have not done any research, but I'll take a stab. They were not cleansed of 'orginal sin'....if I'm understanding your question. Orginial sin, to me, means the fall. The sin of Adam and Eve. We still suffer the effects of 'orginial sin'...cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, TB, etc.... In 1 Corinthians 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. I believe the 'alive' through Christ is spiritual....so we are still under the orginial sin. :)

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 03, 2004.

"You didn't answer the question. How were the Jews in the Old Testament able to be cleansed of their "original sin"???" - Kevin

The Old Testament Saints were certainly not saved by their obedience to the faith, as the Bible says that is an impossibility.

"What I mean by God is no respecter of persons means that God does not deal with anyone differently. In other words there is no partiality with God. Everyone is treated the same way." - Kevin

Was God's love in Romans 9:13 unconditional or conditional?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 03, 2004.

Kevin, you are correct, I did not answer the first question you asked seeing that you are already acquainted with my answer therefore there is no need to repeat it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 03, 2004.

I am not certain what you’re trying to get at concerning the “respecter of persons” Scripture. Does this have something to do with the doctrine of Unconditional Election I believe in? Also, aren’t you the one that is in reality making God a “respecter of persons” by saying God favors only individuals who “obey” him? Keep in mind that I believe unconditional simply means unconditional. I never stated that God favors an individual based on something inherent in that individual, which is why I brought up Romans 9:13 which states, “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Was God's love in Romans 9:13 conditional or unconditional?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 04, 2004.

David,

No, I am not talking about "respector of persons" or "unconditional election", the question I want you to answer is:

How were the Jews in the Old Testament able to be cleansed of their "original sin"???

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), August 04, 2004.

You know my answer, there is no need to repeat it. I am just telling you, the Old Testament Saints were certainly not saved by their obedience to the faith (which is what you'd like us to believe), as the Bible says that is an impossibility.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 04, 2004.

You see, that is the problem, when pressed to provide an answer how the Jews in the Old Testament had their "original sin" washed away, the response that is given is typical and is just as David's response above, "You know my answer, there is no need to repeat it."

I would like to have someone quote me some scripture in the Old Testament that proves beyond a doubt how the Jews had their "original sin" cleansed.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), August 04, 2004.

Kevin, one place we find this is Psalm 51 (KJV).

Psalm 51
1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

Note v. 5, we have sin since conception, ie. original sin. And yet, David says in v. 7 "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow," implying a purification process, cleansing from our sins. This "wash me" seems to me to be a foreshadowing of baptism.

Kevin, thanks for not using all-caps. It makes your posts easier to read.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 04, 2004.

Emily,

Is David saying that he was born a sinner?

The language itself is ambiguous. It is clear in the context of the Psalm that David is expressing humility, contrition, and self-deprecation. It is possible that David is casting an aspersion upon his parentage. There may have been something unseemly about the behavior of his parents at the time of his conception which David uses as a symbol for his own immoral choices.

However, it is more likely that David is simply using hyperbole. Psalm 51 is a poem. In poetry exaggeration is commonly used to make a point. If you look at the rest of the poem you can see that David makes many statements which can not be taken literally. Does David really mean for God to "wash" him, vs. 2? Does David really think of nothing but his sin, vs. 3? Did David truly sin only against God, vs. 4? Since this Psalm is about his sin with Bathsheba, then perhaps Uriah might have something to say about that. Is it possible to be "whiter than snow", vs. 7? Did God really not require sacrifices from David, verses 16 and 19? Considering all of this we may easily conclude that David is simply using hyperbole in verse 5. A similar expression in our culture would be "He's a born killer", by which we simply mean that he is a very vicious murderer.

David uses a similar expression in Psalm 58:3. There he applies the reference to "the wicked". But if everyone is born a sinner then why are "the wicked" singled out for this defamatory declaration? We see that this expression is just that, an expression. It is simply a way of declaring that someone is very bad. Since David is being contrite in Psalm 51 he says this about himself. But if he were really stating a universal theological fact that literally applies to everyone, then He wasn't really being contrite or humble at all. It would be like saying, "I'm so pathetic because I have only one nose." For this reason Psalm 51:5 only makes sense when understood as hyperbole. Copied from: http://castletonchurch.org/topics/calvinintro.html

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 04, 2004.

Emily,

Psalm 51:5 also says nothing about Adam, his sin or that David inherited the guilt of Adam's original sin.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 04, 2004.

Faith,

You wrote, "The Jews are cleansed from original sin the same we are--through the blood of Messiah--they looked forward in faith., we look back in faith, to that cross."

Okay, where is it mentioned in the Old Testament that one must be cleansed of the "original sin" of Adam???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 04, 2004.

Kevin,

Was God's love in Romans 9:13 unconditional or conditional? (In reply to the respector of persons post)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 05, 2004.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 05, 2004.

Kevin,

The Old Testament saints were/are saved the same way we are saved. By faith.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 05, 2004.

Sorry for butting in late. It seems that the argument is over the definition of "sin" and whether "original sin" is really "personal sin" or not.

It seems to me that everyone is in agreement that the guilt of Adam's first sin (his personal guilt from his personal sin) is not passed on to humanity, but the consequences of that sin, which is a wounded human nature (including concupiscence and physical death) are.

My understanding is that Adam was created sinless and in friendship with God (original holiness?). As a result, his original nature was not like ours. For example, there was no such thing as lust because he had complete control over his physical desires. However, when he turned from God, he destroyed that original harmony with creation that he was created with by God. The consequences of this sin resulted in a sundering of that union with God, a sundering of that harmony with nature, and loss of control over his own physical desires. Even the harmony between and woman was broken and lust and domination entered the world.

It is this wounded nature, as a consequence of Adam's sin, that we inherit. Not the guilt of that sin, but the result of that sin which is a rebellious and disobedient nature.

A lot of sin also has physical consequences. I imagine that the nature of the sin of Adam while he was in the sinless and holy state God created Him in also had physical as well as spiritual consequences. It is these consequences we inherit, not the guilt. A mother who takes crack while pregnant gives birth to a baby who is also addicted to crack. The baby has no personal guilt in starting the addiction, but inherits the physical consequences of the Mother's addiction. I suppose we inherit Adam's wounded nature in some analagous way.

Maybe I'm missing the points being made here. Please correct me if I'm misstating anyone's position.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 05, 2004.

Andy, are you familiar with the Pelagian view of Adam's fall? That is Kevin's position as known historically.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 05, 2004.

Actually,

I wasn't even discussing original sin yet, I was just discussing "Is God a respector of persons".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 05, 2004.

Oh... sorry if I threw the discussion off course.

I am familiar with Pelagianism. My understanding is that Pelagianists believed the following:

-They denied original sin because...

-Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.

-Therefore, children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.

-Resulting in the whole human race neither dying through Adam's sin or death, nor rising again through the resurrection of Christ.

Pelagianists also denied Christian grace, to my understanding.

Maybe Kevin can elaborate, but my guess is that he might only agree with the denial of original sin because it was Adam's personal sin and the consequences would not be transferred to future generations. I'm not sure if he would agree with inheriting a wounded nature or not. What say you Kevin?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 05, 2004.

I heard that the Eastern Orthodox view also rejects the idea of original sin. Does anyone know if this is accurate?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 05, 2004.

Hi Emily,

Here is a quote from an Orthodox web site.

"Following the Holy Fathers, the Orthodox Church holds that when Adam sinned against God, he introduced death to the world. Since all men are born of the same human stock as Adam, all men inherit death. Death means that the life of every human being comes to an end (mortality); but also that death generates in us the passions (anger, hate, lust, greed, etc.), disease and aging. "

Maybe I'm dense, but this sounds a lot like the Roman Catholic view to me, (from the Catechism)

"404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails "captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil". Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals.

408 The consequences of original sin and of all men's personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John's expression, "the sin of the world". This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men's sins. "

I personally don't see much difference between the two, yet the Orthodox web site said that there is a big difference. They said that Latins teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. Maybe I'm missing something but that's not what I get out of it all. Maybe being "implicated" in Adam's sin is what they mean. Maybe part of the problem is how everyone defines "original sin." I don't even see how the Protestant view of original sin is all that different (the way I understand it) as long as they don't deny our free will in God's design. But then, as I said before, I'm pretty dense.

The Orthodox (according to the site) do not believe that we have inherited the guilt of the sin of Adam. This leads to a particular view of Christ's death on the cross. According to the web site again (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_cath_diff.aspx)

"Following the holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that Christ, on the Cross, gave "His life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28). "For even the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). The "ransom" is paid to the grave. As the Lord revealed to the Prophet Hosea (Hosea 13:14), "I will ransom them (us) from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death." In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil who has the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14).

The man Christ voluntarily gave Himself on the Cross. He died for all ("a ransom for many" or "the many"). But He rose from the dead in His crucified body. Death had no power to hold Him. It has no power over anyone. The human race is redeemed from the grave, from the devil. Free of the devil is to be free of death and sin. To be free of these, we become like God (deification) and may live with Him forever."

This is in contrast to the idea that only Christ could die to satisfy God's divine justice and pay our "debt." From my reading, the Orthodox do not believe there was a debt to repay, but that there was a ransom to pay to save humanity from the devil.

Any Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christians out there who can set us straight?

______________________________________________________ David,

After reading your last reply again, I realize may have misunderstood you. I think you were saying that Kevin's belief on original sin was in line with the Pelagianists, not that he believed all of Pelagian doctine like my post implies. I am sorry for misundertanding what you wrote.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 05, 2004.

David,

After reading your last reply again, I realize may have misunderstood you. I think you were saying that Kevin's belief on original sin was in line with the Pelagianists, not that he believed all of Pelagian doctine like my post implies. I am sorry for misundertanding what you wrote.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 05, 2004.

Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christians

Andy, I think you may be confusing "Eastern Orthodox" from "Eastern (rite) Catholics". Eastern rite Catholics are in communion with the Pope and agree with Roman Catholics on all doctrinal issues. They are just as fully Catholic as we are. On the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox Church is a separate entity from the Catholic Church, and disagree with us on a few doctrinal issues.

Perhaps our Orthodox friend over on Ezboard can help us.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 05, 2004.

Eek! She left the board. I will email her to see.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 05, 2004.

Our Ezboard forum?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 05, 2004.

Yes, David.

Here is her profile. http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum.showUserPublicProfile? gid=girlofthelimberlost

She posted here. http://p221.ezboard.com/fthechristianforumfrm15.showMessageRange? topicID=1.topic&start=21&stop=40

She called herself "Xenia." Sadly, it seems that she has left the forum. However, I emailed her to see if she could come here and help us on this question.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 05, 2004.

Hi Emily,

I just checked to make sure the info I got was from an Eastern Orthodox not an Eastern rite (Byzantine rite) Catholic site.

The site stated (in so many words) that they were not in full communion with the Pope. Their view of the papacy was in line with the Eastern Orthodox churches.

There was a thread a couple months ago on the Catholic board discussing this same issue between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic views on original sin. I may go back and check it out to see what was said.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 05, 2004.

Thanks for calling on Xenia. It's always good to get the skinny on someone's beliefs directly from them instead of from the internet.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 05, 2004.

I found the old discussion regarding the Eastern Church. There is a short discussion on the differences in the doctrine of original sin. Dan Garon researched it and came to the conclusion that their belief is similar to Roman Catholics except for the "stain" of original sin. See what you think. The discussion is buried in the thread, but near the beginning. Click here to peruse.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 05, 2004.

Andy,

I meant Kevin believed the same as Pelagius on Original Sin and Adam's fall. He might also have similiar beliefs on other things in Pelagianism.

Emily,

Rome and EOC don't agree on Original Sin. Rome holds to the idea of inherited guilt, Eastern Orthodox's deny inherited guilt. EOC does hold to inherited corruption though. Rome follows the Augustine view, EOC follows the Cappadocian view.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 05, 2004.

David,

Thanks for clearing up what you meant regarding Kevin's view on Original Sin and the Pelagianist's view. Again, sorry for misreading your post.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 06, 2004.

Just to be precise on what is meant by the inheritance of original sin in Catholic teaching (pulled from the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org):

Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. Adam has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is "the death of the soul", it is the privation of sanctifying grace.

In my mind, this means that Adam squandered our "supernatural" inheritance (sanctifying grace which is necessary for eternal life and union with God). I suppose this could be described both as inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin and inheriting the consequences of Adam's sin. If sin separates us from God, then this lack of sanctifying grace means we are "naturally" in a state of sin (separation from God) even at birth. The goal of life then would be to cooperate with God's grace and regain the inheritance Christ bought for us with His Blood.

Just wanted to post the more precise meaning of original sin because I've always had problems interpreting the meaning of terms like "inheriting guilt" or "inheriting the consequences of sin." Thanks for bearing with me.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 06, 2004.

Kevin..

I posted a response that I liked better than mine.

I suppose I was misunderstanding what is meant by original sin.

Here it is again:

I asked this question about "original sin" on another board and here was an interesting response: original sin?

great question. I have not done any research, but I'll take a stab. They were not cleansed of 'orginal sin'....if I'm understanding your question. Orginial sin, to me, means the fall. The sin of Adam and Eve. We still suffer the effects of 'orginial sin'...cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, TB, etc.... In 1 Corinthians 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. I believe the 'alive' through Christ is spiritual....so we are still under the orginial sin. :)

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 06, 2004.

Kevin,

Was God's love in Romans 9:13 unconditional or conditional? (In reply to the respector of persons post)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 05, 2004.

I do believe Romans 9 defeats Kevin's argument ("Is God a respector of persons").

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

If Jesus took upon Himself the sin of all humans, then He also took the sin of infants. Who can debate this?

...unless you believe in limited atonement.

You have to believe in a "limited atonement" in order to believe that the blood of Jesus is not for all humans.

Last time I checked, infants are classified as humans.

"for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

All? or just some?

Infants die. They have the Curse upon them. Christ came to take away the Curse by becoming a man who could take the Curse upon Himself.

Christ took upon Himself the Curse of Death so that all who belong to Him are not subject to the Curse of Death spiritually and will be delivered from the Curse physically when He is revealed.

To deny that infants have the Curse of Death (because of sin) is just plain ignorance. It's so obvious it's almost pointless debating it.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 06, 2004.

St. Augustine covers this in On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on the Baptism of Infants. Especially in Books I and III. Good reading for anyone with some spare time on their hands.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 06, 2004.

David,

Please explain specifically how Romans 9:10-18 defeats my "Is God a respecter of persons" post???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

David,

Please explain where it shows in the Old Testament that the Jews and even those before the Jews had the "original sin" of Adam cleansed by faith???

Is "original sin" even mentioned in the Old Testament???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

If we can inherit Adam's guilt, why not inherit the guilt of all our ancestors???

Why can't we inherit righteousness too???

If our parents were Christians who have been cleansed from all sin (1 John 1:7,9; Hebrews 7:25), then there would be no sin to inherit, so we would be born pure! If not why not???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

Where is the passage that teaches that anyone is guilty of sin because they inherited guilt from Adam or is counted guilty before they commit sin???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

Any doctrine which teaches that salvation is NOT conditioned on man's choice, must conclude either that all people will be saved or that God is a respecter of persons and did not really make salvation available to all.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

Calvinism says, in effect, that man is a robot. We have no choice in anything. We became sinners because someone else sinned, before we had anything at all to say or do about it. Then we are saved or lost unconditionally, and there is nothing we can say or do about that either! This doctrine totally eliminates man's free moral agency, power to choose, and individual moral responsibility!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

Hi Kevin,

We do inherit righteousness, but from Jesus Christ. That is why he has been called the New Adam.

There has been some discussion on exactly what is meant by inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin. Rather than inheriting guilt, I think of it as not inheriting the original innocence and justice that Adam was created with. I understand it better as something good we lack, rather than something bad we are born with. This means we are born "natural," in a state of separation from God. Just a thought.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 06, 2004.

Andy,

If Jesus took away all sin, why do we still inherit the guilt of Adam's original sin???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

"Calvinism says, in effect, that man is a robot. We have no choice in anything. " - Kevin

Ohhhh boy....sheessh....here come the straw man arguments..

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

Looks like we hit a nerve..

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

I wrote, "Calvinism says, in effect, that man is a robot. We have no choice in anything. "

To which David replied, "Ohhhh boy....sheessh....here come the straw man arguments.."

Sorry no straw man argument here David, what does your "irresistible grace" doctrine state??? Does one have a "choice" if they are called by God according to this doctrine???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

Kevin, stop being foolish and learn what we believe before you attempt refuting things.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

I doubt you even know what what the 'I' in TULIP means.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

David,

There is no foolishness on this side. The "I" in tulip means "Irresistable Grace".

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

Wow, very good. Now explain that to us.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

Oops, the "T" in Tulip means "Total Depravity".

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

The "U" is for "Unconditional Election"

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

The "L" is for "Limited Atonement"

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

And the "P" is for "Perseverance of the Saints"

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

No, you had it right the first time, it was an " I " but the ' ' makes it look like a T

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

Irresistable Grace: According to the theory of Calvinism, people obey the gospel and are saved because God extends a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. This inward call is separate and apart from the general call of the gospel message contained in the Bible. Everyone hears the general outward call, but only those who receive the special inward call through God's Spirit are able to respond to the outward call. This hidden and mysterious inward call can not be resisted or rejected by the recipient, hence the name "irresistible grace." If God has decided to save a person, that person will be called by the Spirit and he will respond and be saved. Those who do not receive this inward call can not respond to the gospel of their own accord, and so they can not be saved.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

Wouldn't it be better to get the definition from a Calvinist site rather than a anti-Calvinist site?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

Kevin,

Jesus takes away all sin, but it is only made effective for us on an individual basis. He removes the guilt of all sin through baptism and through repentance. In my understanding, we are born in a natural state of separation from God (as well as a corrupted physical state) as a consequence of Adam's sin. In order to be united with God, we must be baptised into Christ. In this way we inherit His righteousness, and His Sacrifice on the cross is made effective for us.

I think humanity still inherits the stain of original sin (a lack of friendship with God) because God loves us so much that He wants each of us to freely choose Him. Here's an example. I meet someone and we hit it off and become great friends. When that friend has a child, I will allow that child to make their own decision whether they want to be frinds with me or not. Otherwise, we can remain strangers, or just acquaintances. I think God might be doing something along the same lines. Letting us begin as strangers, but always calling us to eternal friendship if we so choose. That's just my take on it.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 06, 2004.

David,

I always wondered how free will and our ability to choose fits in with the Calvinist TULIP doctrine and especially with irresistible grace. Also, what about those who are called by grace but fall away and how does one know whether you are one of the elect or a reprobate? Maybe you could explain on a new thread.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 06, 2004.

Yes Andy, we'll make a new thread. Kevin threw this one off topic by intoducing his straw-men. Note: Any further posts on the " I " in TULIP will be deleted.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

"Wouldn't it be better to get the definition from a Calvinist site rather than a anti-Calvinist site?"

Was what I posted not correct???

I already told you that what I posted was not a "straw-man" argument and since you accuse me again, I challenge you to prove that what I posted is a "straw-man".

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

Andy,

Let me get this straight, when Adam sinned, the guilt of his sin was passed to all humanity and when Jesus takes away sin, it is only for us on an "individual basis"???

It seems to me that in your view that the sin of Adam is more powerful than the remission of sins offered by Christ.

If there were such a thing as "original sin" don't you think that God would have made mention of it in the Old Testament??? There are many sins spoken of in the OT and there is not even a hint of "original sin". Why is this the case Andy??? If this were so important that now we have to baptize infants to get rid of this sin, don't you think that something similar would have had to be done for infants in the OT???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.

INFANTS DIE.

Why do infants die? How can an infant become sick? How can an infant be born with a disease? The curse is on them. They've inherited the fallen nature.

CONSIDER THIS:

Do you claim infants cannot have faith?

Isn't lack of faith a sin?

How contradictory is your belief system now?

Actually, infants can have faith... (john the baptist) In fact, I believe all infants have faith... they trust the Christ who lives in their mother. They pray in their own tongue for food and other needs.

Security can only come by faith. Infants find security in their mother's arms.

It's when we grow older that a person's faith becomes less pure.

Therefore, we ought to welcome infants into God's Family - pronouncing them as God's children, in the Name of Jesus Christ, through the Symbol of Adoption.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 07, 2004.

For those who claim infants have no faith and no sin:

LACK OF FAITH IS SIN.

You cannot claim "INFANTS HAVE NO FAITH" and "INFANTS HAVE NO SIN" in the same breath... unless you like walking in a contradictory belief system.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 07, 2004.

How does one get faith???

An infant is not capable of having faith.

An infant is not born depraved and has no sin to cleanse.

Sin is something that we do, we are not born with it.

If an infant is capable of having faith, please explain how you know that an infant is able to do this very thing???

Is an infant able to understand the word of God and do what it says??? I think not...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 07, 2004.

"Why do infants die? How can an infant become sick? How can an infant be born with a disease? The curse is on them. They've inherited the fallen nature."

Infants die because we have inherited the consequences of Adam's sin - death, nothing more.

"Do you claim infants cannot have faith?"

Yes, an infant is not capable of having faith.

"Isn't lack of faith a sin?"

Again, an infant is not capable of having faith.

"How contradictory is your belief system now?"

No contradictions here except what you have placed in your own mind... :-)

"Actually, infants can have faith... (john the baptist)"

There is no evidence that John the baptist had faith while he was in his mother's womb. The only way this infant was able to discern the fact that Mary (Elizabeth's cousin) was carrying the Son of God was that John was that he was filled with the Holy Spirit while he was in the womb.

Luke 1:15 specifically teaches this fact, "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."

"In fact, I believe all infants have faith... they trust the Christ who lives in their mother. They pray in their own tongue for food and other needs."

If I were not laughing so hard, I would be able to come up with a response to this one...

So now infants have their own "tongues"??? Where did you get this information Max??? Plese also explain where you got your information that Infants have the capacity to pray???

"Security can only come by faith. Infants find security in their mother's arms."

Again, Infants have no capacity to have faith. If an infant can have faith, then I challenge you to prove this is possible through the word of God.

"Therefore, we ought to welcome infants into God's Family - pronouncing them as God's children, in the Name of Jesus Christ, through the Symbol of Adoption."

Infants are born into this world with no sin. They do not have the capacity to sin. Jesus said many times, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14). This would not be possible if they were stained with any type of sin.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 07, 2004.

"You cannot claim "INFANTS HAVE NO FAITH" and "INFANTS HAVE NO SIN" in the same breath... unless you like walking in a contradictory belief system."

There is no contradictory belief system being taught here Max. Again, the only contradictions are those you have placed in your own mind.

Infants are not capable of having faith. What causes one to have faith??? Is an infant able to repent??? No. Is an an infant able to confess Jesus as Lord??? No. Is an infant able to obey the gospel of Christ??? No. Three strikes is an out in my book and in this instance you would only need one for this false doctrine to be put to rest.

Infants have no sin because they have committed no sin. We will be judged by our own sins, not the sin of someone else (the original sin of Adam).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 07, 2004.

And what exactly is it within us that we inherit that causes death?

What causes death? You cannot separate sin and death.

>Yes, an infant is not capable of having faith.<

Jesus disagrees.

>"Isn't lack of faith a sin?"

Again, an infant is not capable of having faith.<

That's no answer to the question. Is lack of faith a sin?

>The only way this infant was able to discern the fact that Mary was carrying the Son of God was that John was filled with the Holy Spirit while he was in the womb.<

You cannot discern spiritual truth without faith... especially the ultimate spiritual Truth.

>So now infants have their own "tongues"???<

When a child cries, he is communicating. Don't get confused. I was not referring to the gift of tongues. I was referring to the fact that an infant has his own language (tongue) with which he communicates/expresses himself.

>Where did you get this information Max??? <

Crying is a form of communication.

>Plese also explain where you got your information that Infants have the capacity to pray???<

Praying is communicating. Children can communicate with God. Perhaps not in the formal religious way you imagine all praying must be done, but if infants are conscious of God (which is true ESPECIALLY if they have no sin) then they can certainly communicate with Him in their own way.

>Again, Infants have no capacity to have faith.<

You don't know what faith is. Faith is "reliance upon" someone.

>If an infant can have faith, then I challenge you to prove this is possible through the word of God.<

Luke 18:15 - "People were also bringing babies (brephos) to Jesus to have him touch them."

In fact, unless you have faith like a baby, you cannot see the kingdom of God. You wanted me to prove it by the word of God... Jesus is the Word of God and He says:

Luke 18:17 - "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

Jesus used babies as examples of perfect faith - saving faith.

>Infants are born into this world with no sin.<

The cause of death is sin. Infants die. Sorry.

>They do not have the capacity to sin.<

Babies are not able to perform acts of rebellion, but just because you are unable to "do rebellion" does not mean you do not have a body full of sin. Sin is more than just actions. Sin also includes our fallen nature and inborn tendency to rebel against God.

When the Law comes, sin manifests itself. Sin is there all along, though.

>Jesus said many times, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14). This would not be possible if they were stained with any type of sin. <

Why? You have sin in you and you still expect heaven. Infants have sin, but they also have perfect faith in God, so perfect in fact that Jesus uses them as examples of the faith required in order to enter the kingdom of God.

Do you have faith like a baby? I do. It's the only way.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 07, 2004.

MISSING PART OF LAST POST:

>Infants die because we have inherited the consequences of Adam's sin - death, nothing more.<

And what exactly is it within us that we inherit that causes death?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 07, 2004.

Kevin said: If this were so important that now we have to baptize infants to get rid of this sin, don't you think that something similar would have had to be done for infants in the OT???

There was something - circumcision was the sign of entrance into God's covenant family for the people in the Old Testament.

Genesis 17 (KJV)
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 07, 2004.

I find it very fascinating that Mothers and Fathers with children can say that infants "have no sin". Did you have to teach them to lie, or did you have to teach them to tell the truth? Did you have to teach them to hit their brothers/sisters, or did you have to teach them not to hit their brothers/sisters? Did you have to teach them to talk back to you, or did you have to teach them not to talk back to you? Put some infants in a room together filled with 100 different toys, they'll rip each other’s arms apart if they could fighting for that one toy. I don't think I need to remind anyone of the fits they throw when they don't get their way. Next time you are near an infant, observe them. They rarely share, are angered easily, so why in the world would someone want me to believe they are "sinless"? If an adult would throw a fit every time he didn't get his way, or if he threw things at other people, or if he lied, what would you think of him? Such behavior can hardly be called righteous, yet you want us to look over the fact that all children do it?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2004.

David and Emily,

Excellent points. I really think that children (cute as they are) demonstrate the lack of morals (lack of saving grace) we are all naturally born with due to Adam's sin.

Kevin,

Let me get this straight, when Adam sinned, the guilt of his sin was passed to all humanity and when Jesus takes away sin, it is only for us on an "individual basis"???

Yes, Jesus died for all that all sins may be forgiven. But it is made effective for each of us individually, depending on our response to God. At least that's the way I understand it.

It seems to me that in your view that the sin of Adam is more powerful than the remission of sins offered by Christ.

No, it has nothing to do with being more powerful. Christ's death on the cross for the remission of all sin (including Adam's) is infinitely more powerful than the sin of Adam. The question is, how is this made a reality for each of us. It has everything to do with the consequences of Adam's sin and our free will to choose God or not.

If there were such a thing as "original sin" don't you think that God would have made mention of it in the Old Testament??? There are many sins spoken of in the OT and there is not even a hint of "original sin". Why is this the case Andy??? If this were so important that now we have to baptize infants to get rid of this sin, don't you think that something similar would have had to be done for infants in the OT???

The original sin was Adam's sin, but the effects of that sin (death and the absence of grace) we inherited (in Genesis). The baptism of infants is baptism into Christ for the forgiveness of sin (in Acts and the Epistles).

The Jews did baptise, but I don't think it was to remove sin. That concept came later (with John the Baptist?). It was made real by Christ and His saving death on the cross. Again, that's my limited understanding of how it all fits together.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 08, 2004.

Emily,

Did Xenia ever answer your email? It would be great to see the Eastern Orthodox point of view in all this discussion.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 08, 2004.

Just to be clear, when I refer to "sin" in the context of original sin, I mean an estrangement from God (i.e., the lack of friendship with God or lack of sanctifying grace in Catholic theology). When I refer to "original sin" I mean the sin of Adam that resulted in the loss of this friendship with God for all of us. That is why we need to be "justified" and made adopted sons and daughters of God through Jesus Christ.

Just want to let you know where I'm coming from on the meaning of terms. I'd hate to argue over a concept we are in agreement with just because our understanding of certain terms is different.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 08, 2004.

Kevin,

After rereading my reponse to you I realize I didn't fully answer your last point.

If there were such a thing as "original sin" don't you think that God would have made mention of it in the Old Testament??? There are many sins spoken of in the OT and there is not even a hint of "original sin". Why is this the case Andy??? If this were so important that now we have to baptize infants to get rid of this sin, don't you think that something similar would have had to be done for infants in the OT???

The baptism for the forgiveness of sins was foreshadowed in the OT, but did not come to humanity until Christ. You make a good point that everyone born before Christ never received the saving grace from baptism. This would have occurred, I think, when Christ went to preach to the spirits in prison (1 Pet 3:19; 1 Pet 4:6) during his descent to the dead before the Resurrection. That is the point the just from the OT received the Gospel message and were redeemed, I believe.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 08, 2004.

"And what exactly is it within us that we inherit that causes death? What causes death? You cannot separate sin and death."

God says that sin causes death. We inherit the consequences of Adam's sin -- Death.

I wrote, "Yes, an infant is not capable of having faith."

To which Max replied, "Jesus disagrees."

If Jesus disagrees, then I am sure that you wouldn't mind posting scripture that states that an infant is able to have faith. :-)

I wrote, "Again, an infant is not capable of having faith."

To which Max replied, "That's no answer to the question. Is lack of faith a sin?"

An infant is not capable of having faith, so that is the answer to the question.

I wrote, "The only way this infant was able to discern the fact that Mary was carrying the Son of God was that John was filled with the Holy Spirit while he was in the womb."

To which Max replied, "You cannot discern spiritual truth without faith... especially the ultimate spiritual Truth."

Okay, what does your response have anything to do with John leaping in the womb of Elizabeth??? You have not offered any proof that an infant is capable of having faith.

I wrote, "So now infants have their own "tongues"???"

To which Max replied, "When a child cries, he is communicating. Don't get confused. I was not referring to the gift of tongues. I was referring to the fact that an infant has his own language (tongue) with which he communicates/expresses himself."

Okay, since when is "crying" another "tongue"??? I did not know that crying was it's own language??? Is there anyone here who can vouch that crying is another language??? Why don't we have "crying" interpreters with us today???

I wrote, "Where did you get this information Max???"

To which Max replied, "Crying is a form of communication."

Okay, if this is the case, then why don't we have anyone to "interpret" this form of communication??? We have interpreters for every other language???

I wrote, "Plese also explain where you got your information that Infants have the capacity to pray???"

To which Max replied, "Praying is communicating. Children can communicate with God. Perhaps not in the formal religious way you imagine all praying must be done, but if infants are conscious of God (which is true ESPECIALLY if they have no sin) then they can certainly communicate with Him in their own way."

We are not talking about "children", we are talking about "infants". Ag I will let the readers decide if you are telling the truth Max. Infants have no concept of God nor can they communicate with Him in their own way. If this were true, don't you think we would have our people of science investigating this very thing???

I wrote, "Again, Infants have no capacity to have faith."

To which Max replied, "You don't know what faith is. Faith is "reliance upon" someone."

Go back and re-read Hebrews chapter 11:1 to see what is the true definition of Faith. From reading this definition of faith, you are the one who needs help understanding what faith is.

I wrote, "If an infant can have faith, then I challenge you to prove this is possible through the word of God."

To which Max replied, "Luke 18:15 - "People were also bringing babies (brephos) to Jesus to have him touch them."

Just because Jesus touched them is no evidence that they had faith now is it Max???

Max wrote, "In fact, unless you have faith like a baby, you cannot see the kingdom of God. You wanted me to prove it by the word of God... Jesus is the Word of God and He says: Luke 18:17 - "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." Jesus used babies as examples of perfect faith - saving faith."

The truth of the matter is Jesus used babies as examples of those who have no sin, faith had nothing to do with it.

I wrote, "Infants are born into this world with no sin."

To which Max replied, "The cause of death is sin. Infants die. Sorry."

Yes infants die because we inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam ? death.

I wrote, "They do not have the capacity to sin."

To which Max replied, "Babies are not able to perform acts of rebellion, but just because you are unable to "do rebellion" does not mean you do not have a body full of sin. Sin is more than just actions. Sin also includes our fallen nature and inborn tendency to rebel against God. When the Law comes, sin manifests itself. Sin is there all along, though."

Paul said in Romans 7:7, "I would not have known sin except through the law."

I wrote, "Jesus said many times, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14). This would not be possible if they were stained with any type of sin."

To which Max replied, "Why? You have sin in you and you still expect heaven. Infants have sin, but they also have perfect faith in God, so perfect in fact that Jesus uses them as examples of the faith required in order to enter the kingdom of God. Do you have faith like a baby? I do. It's the only way."

God says in Romans 10:17, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." There is no example anywhere in the Bible of a person possessing faith apart from instruction from the word of God. How does one determine which infants are the believers and which are atheists??? It is certain they cannot be interrogated them. Do the babies who are atheists who die in infancy go to hell?

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), August 08, 2004.

Emily wrote, "There was something - circumcision was the sign of entrance into God's covenant family for the people in the Old Testament."

Okay, how about the women???

Circumcision had nothing to do with removing one's sins.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), August 08, 2004.

David wrote, "I find it very fascinating that Mothers and Fathers with children can say that infants "have no sin". Did you have to teach them to lie, or did you have to teach them to tell the truth? Did you have to teach them to hit their brothers/sisters, or did you have to teach them not to hit their brothers/sisters? Did you have to teach them to talk back to you, or did you have to teach them not to talk back to you? Put some infants in a room together filled with 100 different toys, they'll rip each other?s arms apart if they could fighting for that one toy. I don't think I need to remind anyone of the fits they throw when they don't get their way. Next time you are near an infant, observe them. They rarely share, are angered easily, so why in the world would someone want me to believe they are "sinless"? If an adult would throw a fit every time he didn't get his way, or if he threw things at other people, or if he lied, what would you think of him? Such behavior can hardly be called righteous, yet you want us to look over the fact that all children do it?"

God said in Proverbs 22:15, "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him."

Proverbs 13:24, "He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly."

Proverbs 23:13-14, "13 Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. 14 You shall beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell."

Proverbs 29:15, "The rod and rebuke give wisdom, But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother." Proverbs 29:17, "Correct your son, and he will give you rest; Yes, he will give delight to your soul."

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), August 08, 2004.

I wrote, "It seems to me that in your view that the sin of Adam is more powerful than the remission of sins offered by Christ."

To which Andy replied, "No, it has nothing to do with being more powerful. Christ's death on the cross for the remission of all sin (including Adam's) is infinitely more powerful than the sin of Adam. The question is, how is this made a reality for each of us. It has everything to do with the consequences of Adam's sin and our free will to choose God or not."

So, you are saying that we inherit the consequences of Adam's disobedience (death through sin) and yet we don't inherit the consequences of Jesus obedience (life through remission of sin)??? Surely this is what you are saying.

I wrote, "If there were such a thing as "original sin" don't you think that God would have made mention of it in the Old Testament??? There are many sins spoken of in the OT and there is not even a hint of "original sin". Why is this the case Andy??? If this were so important that now we have to baptize infants to get rid of this sin, don't you think that something similar would have had to be done for infants in the OT???"

To which Andy replied, "The original sin was Adam's sin, but the effects of that sin (death and the absence of grace) we inherited (in Genesis). The baptism of infants is baptism into Christ for the forgiveness of sin (in Acts and the Epistles)."

Where is it written in the Old Testament that we inherit the effects of the sin of Adam other than death??? Where does it state that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin???

Andy continued in a later post: "The baptism for the forgiveness of sins was foreshadowed in the OT, but did not come to humanity until Christ. You make a good point that everyone born before Christ never received the saving grace from baptism. This would have occurred, I think, when Christ went to preach to the spirits in prison (1 Pet 3:19; 1 Pet 4:6) during his descent to the dead before the Resurrection. That is the point the just from the OT received the Gospel message and were redeemed, I believe."

Christ preaching to the spirits in prison had nothing to do with the removal of sin. Please see Preaching to the Spirits in Prison for a better explanation of this verse.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), August 08, 2004.

>God says that sin causes death. We inherit the consequences of Adam's sin -- Death.<

You cannot inherit death without inheriting the disease that causes it. Don't make me chuckle.

>Is lack of faith a sin?"

An infant is not capable of having faith, so that is the answer to the question.<

IS LACK OF FAITH A SIN?

Don't be so dodgy. Answer the Q.

>Okay, what does your response have anything to do with John leaping in the womb of Elizabeth??? You have not offered any proof that an infant is capable of having faith.<

You said yourself: "this infant was able to discern the fact that Mary was carrying the Son of God."

How is it possible for a person to DISCERN the ultimate spiritual truth without faith?

Even your own words show that John the Baptist, in the womb, had faith.

>Okay, since when is "crying" another "tongue"???<

Crying is communication. It is the child's way of communicating.

>I did not know that crying was it's own language???<

Is that a question?

> Is there anyone here who can vouch that crying is another language???<

Crying is the only way a child has to express himself. Most mothers are inuitive enough to recognize this fact. Infants know they can get results by crying. Tell me this isn't communication. If it's communication it's certainly a language. It may not be a world language that has nouns and vowels etc. but the point was that INFANTS CAN COMMUNICATE.

>Why don't we have "crying" interpreters with us today???<

We do. Mothers. And dads that care.

>Okay, if this is the case, then why don't we have anyone to "interpret" this form of communication??? We have interpreters for every other language???<

See above. Mothers are able to "interpret" her infant's sign language and cry language.

>Infants have no concept of God nor can they communicate with Him in their own way.<

Infants don't have a theological knowledge of God, but they have an experiential knowledge of God. They know LOVE. Infants can smile.

>If this were true, don't you think we would have our people of science investigating this very thing???<

Scientists can't prove that any human is communicating with God. They can observe human behavior just as anybody can observe an infant. Infants have souls. Our souls are windows to God.

Your problem is that you think God has to fit in your head in order to know Him. You have no clue how far beyond your head God is.

>Go back and re-read Hebrews chapter 11:1 to see what is the true definition of Faith. From reading this definition of faith, you are the one who needs help understanding what faith is.<

Hebrews 11:1 only backs my position. You cannot have real hope without RELYING on God. If you want to argue with that obvious fact, you just enjoy being contentious.

>Just because Jesus touched them is no evidence that they had faith now is it Max???<

The verse was to prove it was infants he was referring to.

>The truth of the matter is Jesus used babies as examples of those who have no sin, faith had nothing to do with it.<

"anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child"

Fact is, the act of "receiving" is what Jesus is speaking about.

Have you RECEIVED the kingdom like a baby? If you've tried to receive it in any other manner, you're on the outside. The Lord says this.

>Yes infants die because we inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam ? death.<

You cannot inherit death without inheriting the "disease" that causes it - SIN. The corruption of SIN is what we inherit.

>Paul said in Romans 7:7, "I would not have known sin except through the law."<

Exactly. It's in you, but you do not know it until the Law comes. As soon as the Law says, "Do not do that" sin comes alive in you and begins its work of rebellion. You have to have sin before you can know sin.

>There is no example anywhere in the Bible of a person possessing faith apart from instruction from the word of God.<

You are assuming God's Word only comes in English or French or Hebrew etc. God's Word is His Communication. It can come in whatever form He chooses. Hearing with ears is not required, otherwise deaf people could not be saved. You can hear with your ears all your life, but unless your soul hears, you do not get anything.

Touching a person can COMMUNICATE a meaning (word) and feeling that touch is HEARING that meaning (word.)

God can even communicate the gospel in picture form. The language doesn't matter. The Message does. And the Mesage is so simple an infant can RECEIVE it.

That's why it's almost impossible for the learned and wise and rich to see the kingdom of God.

>How does one determine which infants are the believers and which are atheists???<

In my opinion, ALL infants are believers. As they grow, they slowly lose their purity of faith. Some grow up to lead godless lives, knowing they should return to God, but refusing the call. Others find the expression of the TRUTH in the Gospel as they grow up and they stick with it their whole lives.

>It is certain they cannot be interrogated them.<

Huh?

>Do the babies who are atheists who die in infancy go to hell? <

No baby is an athiest. That's YOUR belief. You believe ALL BABIES are athiests (non-believers) - even John the Baptist who "discerned" the Lord coming. You may need to seriously question your personal theology.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 08, 2004.

"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read, " 'From the lips of children and infants You have ordained praise' ?" - Matt. 21:16

Deal with the words of Jesus.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 08, 2004.

Andy,

Yes she answered. She said she was going to come here and share, but I guess she got busy. I don't know what happened.

Kevin said: Okay, how about the women??? Circumcision had nothing to do with removing one's sins.

Kevin, then why did it say in Genesis 17:14 "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." ??

We agree that baptism is necessary for the removal of sins. And in the following passage, we see not only that, but also that baptism is the New Testament equivalent of circumcision.

Colossians 2 (KJV)
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

The fact that women were excluded is irrelevant, because that was an Old Testament shadow of the New Testament type that was to come. Not only that, but Paul addresses this very thing in Galatians 3 (KJV below).

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Notice that with baptism "there is neither male nor female." This shows that although circumcision was only for males in the OT, it is now for everyone, male and female. In addition, males were the leaders in society in Jewish culture, and God's original intention was for the firstborn son to be the priest for each family. God did not go with that plan because of the people's sinfulness, but in any case, it would have made sense in their society for it to be only for males. The Bible does say that it was an initiation into God's covenant. Females were included by their faith and obedience to God, and they were under male headship.

Now if you look at the Galatians passage above, notice that we who are in Christ are all Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. That "promise" or covenant was sealed in the OT by circumcision, and it is again in the NT by baptism.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 08, 2004.

"You cannot inherit death without inheriting the disease that causes it. Don't make me chuckle."

Says who??? Are we to believe that one inherits the guilt of Adam just because Max says so??? Where does it state this in the Old Testament that anyone inherited Adam's guilt??? Scripture(s) please.

"Don't be so dodgy. Answer the Q."

I did answer the question. Just because you didn't like my response is not proof that I didn't answer you.

"You said yourself: "this infant was able to discern the fact that Mary was carrying the Son of God."

Actually, I said it was the "Holy Spirit" that allowed the infant to discern the fact that Mary was carrying the Son of God. If you are going to quote me, please get it correct.

"Even your own words show that John the Baptist, in the womb, had faith."

Sorry, it was the Holy Spirit that caused the infant to leap for joy. You could not prove that John the Baptist had faith while he was in the womb if your life depended on it.

"Crying is communication. It is the child's way of communicating."

Crying is not a tongue. A tongue is a language. Case closed.

"Is that a question?"

You said crying was a tongue. A tongue is a language so yes that was a question.

"Crying is the only way a child has to express himself. Most mothers are inuitive enough to recognize this fact. Infants know they can get results by crying. Tell me this isn't communication. If it's communication it's certainly a language. It may not be a world language that has nouns and vowels etc. but the point was that INFANTS CAN COMMUNICATE."

If crying is a language, where are the interpreters??? Women know they can get results by crying, so what is the difference???

"We do. Mothers. And dads that care."

Okay, so where is the book that shows the Mothers and Dads how to interpret each different type of cry??? Give me a break...

"See above. Mothers are able to "interpret" her infant's sign language and cry language."

I am still waiting for the book... Cry language??? You are killing me... LOL!!!

"Infants don't have a theological knowledge of God, but they have an experiential knowledge of God. They know LOVE. Infants can smile."

Where is your proof that infants "have an experiential knowledge of God??? Is it just because Max says so??? Scripture(s) please.

"Scientists can't prove that any human is communicating with God. They can observe human behavior just as anybody can observe an infant. Infants have souls. Our souls are windows to God."

Which is my point exactly. Infants cannot talk. Infants cannot reason. Infants cannot hear and understand the word of God enough to do what God commands. Infants cannot communicate with God. Just because infants have souls is no proof that they can speak with God.

"Your problem is that you think God has to fit in your head in order to know Him. You have no clue how far beyond your head God is."

Your problem is that you really do not know what you are talking about. We only learn about God through His word. It is His word that produces faith and it is through His word that we come to a knowledge of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no salvation outside of the word of God.

"Hebrews 11:1 only backs my position. You cannot have real hope without RELYING on God. If you want to argue with that obvious fact, you just enjoy being contentious."

Let?s see if Hebrews 11:1 backs your position as you allege. Earlier you stated: "You don't know what faith is. Faith is "reliance upon" someone."

Here is what Hebrews 11:1 states, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

How can an infant hope??? How can an infant believe in the evidence of things not seen??? This is not possible.

"The verse was to prove it was infants he was referring to."

Where does this verse prove that the infants had faith??? Did Jesus touching these infants automatically give them faith???

"anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child Fact is, the act of "receiving" is what Jesus is speaking about. Have you RECEIVED the kingdom like a baby? If you've tried to receive it in any other manner, you're on the outside. The Lord says this."

So unless one receives the kingdom as an infant they are lost??? Nice try.

Matthew 18:3 and 19:4 are inconsistent with the view that little children are born "sinners". Indeed, it is taught in these passages that both classes have been brought into this state of condemnation by walking in sin, not by their birth.

Calvinism teaches that "does not by nature imply that they are born 'children of wrath'" The word rendered "by nature," is found in Romans 2:14;1 Cor. 11:14; Gal. 2:15; Gal. 4:8. In only one of these passages can it refer to natural birth at all, and there it refers to race (Gal. 2:15). In not one passage does it describe what is innate. It does describe custom, practice, and unconverted state. No one would say that the Gentiles, who "do by nature the things of the law," do so because it is innate. It means that they do so without the revelation. In a similar sense it is used here, and means that "we," as well as others, before we were converted by the gospel, were dwelling in sin like others, and were like them, "the children of wrath." The state of nature is the unconverted state. In is not a reference to any inherent nature that makes men sinners but rather the nature of those who had been practicing sin as "Children of wrath".

But notice what Paul says in the seventh chapter of Romans concerning the nature of the inner man, converted or not, "delights in the law of God." (Romans 7:22).

"You cannot inherit death without inheriting the "disease" that causes it - SIN. The corruption of SIN is what we inherit."

Again, are we to believe this just because Max says so??? Sin is present in the world however, this sin is not passed through to our children. Sin is something that one does, not something that one inherits.

"Exactly. It's in you, but you do not know it until the Law comes. As soon as the Law says, "Do not do that" sin comes alive in you and begins its work of rebellion. You have to have sin before you can know sin."

If one does not know what sin is until the Law comes, then how can one be charged guilty of a sin they didn't even know existed??? Please notice that Paul said that, "I was alive once without the law," (Romans 7:9). How is that possible if he was born a sinner???

"You are assuming God's Word only comes in English or French or Hebrew etc. God's Word is His Communication. It can come in whatever form He chooses. Hearing with ears is not required, otherwise deaf people could not be saved. You can hear with your ears all your life, but unless your soul hears, you do not get anything."

There is no assumption here on my part. I am not making an argument about the different forms of communication available. Can the deaf people see??? Of course they can. Since this is the case, then they read and understand what they need to do in order to be saved.

"In my opinion, ALL infants are believers. As they grow, they slowly lose their purity of faith. Some grow up to lead godless lives, knowing they should return to God, but refusing the call. Others find the expression of the TRUTH in the Gospel as they grow up and they stick with it their whole lives."

Where is your scripture(s) that support your opinion that "All infants are believers"???

"No baby is an athiest. That's YOUR belief. You believe ALL BABIES are athiests (non-believers) - even John the Baptist who "discerned" the Lord coming. You may need to seriously question your personal theology."

Really??? How do you know this to be true??? Have you interviewed a significant amount of babies to verify whether this opinion of yours is true??? I don't believe that babies are athiests nor do I believe that babies are able to have faith. You need to prove from the word of God that your opinions are the truth. If you cannot prove this from God's word, then you need to change your opinion.

"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read, " 'From the lips of children and infants You have ordained praise' ?" - Matt. 21:16 Deal with the words of Jesus."

These words of Jesus come from Ps 8:2 which states, "Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength, Because of Your enemies, That You may silence the enemy and the avenger."

When you show me an infant who can "ordain praise" then I will believe you. Until then, this is nothing more than your opinion.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 08, 2004.

I wrote, "Okay, how about the women??? Circumcision had nothing to do with removing one's sins."

To which Emily replied, "Kevin, then why did it say in Genesis 17:14 "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." ??"

What does the covenant have anything to do with remission of sins??? Where are the women in this passage???

Emily wrote, "We agree that baptism is necessary for the removal of sins. And in the following passage, we see not only that, but also that baptism is the New Testament equivalent of circumcision. Colossians 2 (KJV) 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"

Baptism is not the equivalent of circumcision. The apostle Paul said in 1 Cor. 7:19, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters."

Emily wrote, "The fact that women were excluded is irrelevant, because that was an Old Testament shadow of the New Testament type that was to come. Not only that, but Paul addresses this very thing in Galatians 3 (KJV below). 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

No the fact that women were excluded is not irrelevant. I would like you to tell me how the women were cleansed of their "original sin".

Emily wrote, "Notice that with baptism "there is neither male nor female." This shows that although circumcision was only for males in the OT, it is now for everyone, male and female."

We are not talking about baptism, we are talking about how those in the Old Testament were cleansed of their "original sin".

Emily wrote, "In addition, males were the leaders in society in Jewish culture, and God's original intention was for the firstborn son to be the priest for each family."

Women had to have their sins cleansed also and the males who were leaders in the Jewish society had nothing to do with their sins.

Emily wrote, "God did not go with that plan because of the people's sinfulness, but in any case, it would have made sense in their society for it to be only for males. The Bible does say that it was an initiation into God's covenant. Females were included by their faith and obedience to God, and they were under male headship."

Where does it state this to be true that "Females were included by their faith and obedience to God"??? Scripture(s) please.

Emily wrote, "Now if you look at the Galatians passage above, notice that we who are in Christ are all Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. That "promise" or covenant was sealed in the OT by circumcision, and it is again in the NT by baptism."

Again, we are not talking about passages in the New Testament.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 08, 2004.

>Are we to believe that one inherits the guilt of Adam just because Max says so???<

We inherit the SIN NATURE of Adam... the currupt nature. We weren't speaking about guilt. You're swapping terms to wiggle out of it.

>I did answer the question. Just because you didn't like my response is not proof that I didn't answer you.<

Is lack of faith a sin?

The answer is YES or NO. It has nothing to do with infants. You can't answer YES or NO because you know answering would be hanging yourself with your contradictory theology.

>Actually, I said it was the "Holy Spirit" that allowed the infant to discern the fact that Mary was carrying the Son of God. If you are going to quote me, please get it correct.<

You still said that the infant can discern. Whether the Holy Spirit allows him or notis not the point. A person cannot discern spiritual truth without faith. You must admit that.

>You could not prove that John the Baptist had faith while he was in the womb if your life depended on it.<

You said yourself that John DISCERNED that the Son of God was in Mary. You cannot escape that John recognized Jesus' presence. The Bible is clear.

>Crying is not a tongue. A tongue is a language. Case closed.<

An infant has its own language - system of communication.

lan·guage n. 1. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.

Infants "communicate through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures"

CASE CLOSED.

>If crying is a language, where are the interpreters???<

Mom. Dad.

>Women know they can get results by crying, so what is the difference???<

Crying conveys deeper meaning. That's why it gets results. But, crying is not the only thing an infant does to communicate/express meaning.

>Okay, so where is the book that shows the Mothers and Dads how to interpret each different type of cry??? Give me a break...<

Why does it need to be written in a book to be language? You don't know what language is... find a dictionary.

>I am still waiting for the book... Cry language??? You are killing me... LOL!!!<

Someday you'll realize language is more than just formal words or ink on paper. Even a kiss is a form of language.

>Where is your proof that infants "have an experiential knowledge of God???<

Infants have souls that can sense goodness and love, even before they are born. John the Baptist sensed the presence of Jesus. That's all the proof I need.

>Infants cannot talk.<

Wrong. Some infants are more advanced than you think. Even average infants can communicate, which is talking. They may not know English, but they are still communicating.

>Infants cannot reason.<

You, my friend, have never held a meaningful relationship with an infant. Their reasoning may not be at the level of an adults, but to say an infant cannot reason is absolute ignorance. This is where you just spilled all your credibility.

>Infants cannot hear and understand the word of God enough to do what God commands.<

They cannot understand the gospel presented in the English language, but they certainly understand the essence of the Gospel - Love.

>Infants cannot communicate with God.<

They cannot recite prayers like adults, but they can certainly respond to the goodness of Life. Even Jesus said babes give praise to God.

>Just because infants have souls is no proof that they can speak with God.<

You imagine the only way to commune with God is through speaking with your lips.

>Your problem is that you really do not know what you are talking about. We only learn about God through His word.<

Even the Word says humans canknow about God's power through the testimony of nature. We do not gain the ultimate revelation through nature, but we can learn about God through nature. Sorry. You're wrong.

>It is His word that produces faith and it is through His word that we come to a knowledge of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.<

You imagine that the only form God's Word can take is ink and paper or spoken. God's Word (communication) can come in whatever form he ordains.

>There is no salvation outside of the word of God.<

Right. But, the Word is not limited to the Bible, if that's what you're imagining. God's Word is not bound. God can communicate His Word in whatever form He chooses. In fact, the ultimate form of God's Expression is the Lord Jesus Himself... and Jesus is not a book.

>How can an infant hope???<

An infant hopes in his mother. An infant who is secure has hope.

>How can an infant believe in the evidence of things not seen???<

Faith IS the evidence of things not seen... not just believing in the evidence of things not seen as you stated. Again, faith IS the evidence of things not seen.

An infant can be certain that his mother loves him. The certainty of the infant is the evidence of things not seen. Certainty is faith.

John was certain of the presence of Jesus and was moved with joy. You cannot deny that infants can have faith if John was certain of Jesus' presence and responded.

>Where does this verse prove that the infants had faith??? Did Jesus touching these infants automatically give them faith???<

The point of posting that verse was not to prove the infants had faith. It was to simply prove they were infants, not small children. The proof of infant faith came after that.

>So unless one receives the kingdom as an infant they are lost??? Nice try.<

No, unless you receive the kingdom LIKE an infant, you are lost. I never said you must be an infant. Now you're just being silly.

>Sin is present in the world however, this sin is not passed through to our children. Sin is something that one does, not something that one inherits.<

Sin is both the tendency to sin as well as the actual sin. A bad attitude towards God is sin even if it is not acted out. We all have a bad attitude towards God in our flesh. Our flesh is rebellious by nature.

>If one does not know what sin is until the Law comes, then how can one be charged guilty of a sin they didn't even know existed???<

Just because you are ignorant of a Law does not make you guiltless. If that's the case, we ought to bury the Law and everyone will be saved. The Law simply makes sin evident. It's like a mirror that shows your dirty face. Your face is still dirty whether you have the mirror or not.

>Please notice that Paul said that, "I was alive once without the law," (Romans 7:9). How is that possible if he was born a sinner???<

He was alive in the sense that his conscience was aware of its sin. That does not mean he had no sin. The mirror (law) appeared and revealed his dirty face (sinful nature.)

>Can the deaf people see??? Of course they can. Since this is the case, then they read and understand what they need to do in order to be saved.<

So, in order to be saved, a deaf person needs to first learn how to read? What about all the centuries before this last century when most people could not even read at all? What about a deaf blind person? You have some serious issues to deal with by limiting God's Word (His Expression) to paper and ink.

>Where is your scripture(s) that support your opinion that "All infants are believers"???<

I said, "in my opinion." My opinion is based on the fact that you cannot enter the kingdom of God unless you receive it like an infant - with perfect faith. Jesus used one infant to represent the faith of all infants. Unless you receive it like an infant, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.

>I don't believe that babies are athiests nor do I believe that babies are able to have faith.<

I suppose that makes babies agnostic in your view. ..

The fact is, John the Baptist sensed Jesus and responded with joy. If anybody had faith (evidence of things not seen) it was this baby in a dark womb who was able to "discern" the spiritual truth that he was in the presence of the Almighty Lord.

>When you show me an infant who can "ordain praise" then I will believe you.<

Jesus said it, not me. Believe Him.

What comes out of the mouth of babes? Praise to the Lord. That's the context of the verse when Jesus quoted it.

Jesus' enemies told him to shut the kids up in God's temple. Jesus happily responded with scripture that said even children AND infants are ordained to give glory (strength/praise) to God.

You can't get around this.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 09, 2004.

CORRECTION:

>Please notice that Paul said that, "I was alive once without the law," (Romans 7:9). How is that possible if he was born a sinner???<

He was alive in the sense that his conscience was NOT aware of sin. That does not mean he had no sin. The mirror (law) appeared and revealed his dirty face (sinful nature.)

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 09, 2004.

Summed up: The Bible gives good evidence FOR infants having faith and NO EVIDENCE against it.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 09, 2004.

Hi Kevin,

This discussion is awesome! Lots to digest. It's getting a little crowded so I'll reply to your points and let you have the last word if you want.

So, you are saying that we inherit the consequences of Adam's disobedience (death through sin) and yet we don't inherit the consequences of Jesus obedience (life through remission of sin)??? Surely this is what you are saying.

Yes and no. We don't ((automatically)) inherit the consequences of Jesus' odedience. We inherit the consequences of Jesus' obedience through baptism after we become an adopted child of God through Christ, our brother.

Where is it written in the Old Testament that we inherit the effects of the sin of Adam other than death??? Where does it state that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin???

I think you're hung up on the word "guilt". If you look at the consequence of Adam's sin as a loss of friendship with God, then we inherit the consequence of that sin (physical and spiritual death). We inherit the natural tendency to sin, which is due to a lack of friendship with God (lack of sanctifying grace in my theology). I think Max made mention of something similar to this in one of his responses. ((Death)) in Scripture also means spiritual death, just as ((salvation)) can mean physical and spiritual salvation.

Christ preaching to the spirits in prison had nothing to do with the removal of sin. Please see Preaching to the Spirits in Prison for a better explanation of this verse.

Good info, but that discussion is for another thread. The bottom line is that everyone before Christ inherited the consequences (natural death and spiritual death) of Adam's sin. Somehow the saving act of Christ was applied to the just so they could enter the Kingdom of God.

Looking forward to your final reply.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 09, 2004.

"We inherit the SIN NATURE of Adam... the currupt nature. We weren't speaking about guilt. You're swapping terms to wiggle out of it."

Okay, do we inherit the sin of Adam or not??? Are we born sinners??? If so, then we inherit the guilt of his sin.

"Is lack of faith a sin?"

If we are talking about infants (and we are) this question is irrelevant because infants have no sin to be charged with. Infants don't have the capacity to have faith, so they cannot sin.

"The answer is YES or NO. It has nothing to do with infants. You can't answer YES or NO because you know answering would be hanging yourself with your contradictory theology."

See my answer above.

"You still said that the infant can discern. Whether the Holy Spirit allows him or notis not the point. A person cannot discern spiritual truth without faith. You must admit that."

Through the "Holy Spirit". If the Holy Spirit were not present, then there would be no discernment.

"You said yourself that John DISCERNED that the Son of God was in Mary. You cannot escape that John recognized Jesus' presence. The Bible is clear."

Again, this was possible only through the Holy Spirit that dwelled in John.

"An infant has its own language - system of communication. lan·guage n. 1. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols. Infants "communicate through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures" CASE CLOSED."

Okay if infants have "their own language" as you state then where are the interpreters??? Mom and Dad don't cut it... Where are the books or dictionaries that show the English or other languages of the world that give the definitions for the words for the corresponding infant communication (i.e. crying)???

"Why does it need to be written in a book to be language? You don't know what language is... find a dictionary."

I asked you for one that defines crying above, where is one located that I might check it out???

"Someday you'll realize language is more than just formal words or ink on paper. Even a kiss is a form of language."

If a "kiss is a form of language", then where is this stated???

"Infants have souls that can sense goodness and love, even before they are born. John the Baptist sensed the presence of Jesus. That's all the proof I need."

Where are the scripture(s) besides John the Baptist that prove that infants have faith???

"Wrong. Some infants are more advanced than you think. Even average infants can communicate, which is talking. They may not know English, but they are still communicating."

Okay, where is the dictionary that explains this language???

"You, my friend, have never held a meaningful relationship with an infant. Their reasoning may not be at the level of an adults, but to say an infant cannot reason is absolute ignorance. This is where you just spilled all your credibility."

Okay Max, let's put your credibility on the line, where is your proof that infants can reason??? Is it just because Max says so??? If I have lost my credibility as you allege, you certainly have not proven this to be true.

"They cannot understand the gospel presented in the English language, but they certainly understand the essence of the Gospel - Love."

The gospel is God's power to salvation. Unless one obeys the gospel of Christ they are not saved. An infant is not capable of obeying the gospel.

"They cannot recite prayers like adults, but they can certainly respond to the goodness of Life. Even Jesus said babes give praise to God."

Where is your evidence that infants can "give praise to God"???

"You imagine the only way to commune with God is through speaking with your lips."

These are your words Max, not mine.

"Even the Word says humans canknow about God's power through the testimony of nature. We do not gain the ultimate revelation through nature, but we can learn about God through nature. Sorry. You're wrong."

Yes, we can know the power of God through nature however, one cannot truly know God unless they read of Him in the Bible. Actually you are wrong. If salvation is located outside of the word of God, then I challenge you to prove it!

"You imagine that the only form God's Word can take is ink and paper or spoken. God's Word (communication) can come in whatever form he ordains."

Is there another Bible that I am not aware of??? Has God communicated His will in some other form??? Please do explain Max.

"Right. But, the Word is not limited to the Bible, if that's what you're imagining. God's Word is not bound. God can communicate His Word in whatever form He chooses. In fact, the ultimate form of God's Expression is the Lord Jesus Himself... and Jesus is not a book."

Where does one learn of Jesus except through the Bible???

"An infant hopes in his mother. An infant who is secure has hope."

So, an infant who is secure has hope??? What is the infant's hope Max???

"Faith IS the evidence of things not seen... not just believing in the evidence of things not seen as you stated. Again, faith IS the evidence of things not seen."

You forgot the first part of the verse, Faith is the "substance of things hoped for". How can an infant hope for something they have no knowledge of??? This is not possible.

"John was certain of the presence of Jesus and was moved with joy. You cannot deny that infants can have faith if John was certain of Jesus' presence and responded."

Please notice that it was the "Holy Spirit" that caused the infant John to leap for joy.

"The point of posting that verse was not to prove the infants had faith. It was to simply prove they were infants, not small children. The proof of infant faith came after that."

You still have not proven your opinion that infants have the ability to have faith. Keep trying, your logic is not working.

"Sin is both the tendency to sin as well as the actual sin. A bad attitude towards God is sin even if it is not acted out. We all have a bad attitude towards God in our flesh. Our flesh is rebellious by nature."

Do we inherit sin???

"Just because you are ignorant of a Law does not make you guiltless. If that's the case, we ought to bury the Law and everyone will be saved. The Law simply makes sin evident. It's like a mirror that shows your dirty face. Your face is still dirty whether you have the mirror or not."

This is not true. Paul stated he was alive before the Law came.

"He was alive in the sense that his conscience was aware of its sin. That does not mean he had no sin. The mirror (law) appeared and revealed his dirty face (sinful nature.)"

How was he "alive" if "his conscience was aware of sin". The text states when the "commandment came (the law), sin revived and I died." How could Paul have "died" if he was already a sinner???

"So, in order to be saved, a deaf person needs to first learn how to read? What about all the centuries before this last century when most people could not even read at all? What about a deaf blind person? You have some serious issues to deal with by limiting God's Word (His Expression) to paper and ink."

Can someone teach the deaf person the gospel. Of course. Just because someone cannot read is no excuse for disobedience to the gospel of Christ. Does the deaf/blind person have the capability to learn how to learn braille??? If so, then this person can be saved. How many more excuses are you going to give Max???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 09, 2004.

"The gospel is God's power to salvation. Unless one obeys the gospel of Christ they are not saved. An infant is not capable of obeying the gospel." - Kevin

Does this mean infants that die in infancy are hellbound?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 09, 2004.

Andy,

I wrote, "So, you are saying that we inherit the consequences of Adam's disobedience (death through sin) and yet we don't inherit the consequences of Jesus obedience (life through remission of sin)??? Surely this is what you are saying."

To which you replied, "Yes and no. We don't ((automatically)) inherit the consequences of Jesus' odedience. We inherit the consequences of Jesus' obedience through baptism after we become an adopted child of God through Christ, our brother."

Please explain why all of us inherit the sin of Adam yet when Jesus comes and takes away that sin, we don't inherit the remission of sins???

I wrote, "Where is it written in the Old Testament that we inherit the effects of the sin of Adam other than death??? Where does it state that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin???"

To which you replied, "I think you're hung up on the word "guilt". If you look at the consequence of Adam's sin as a loss of friendship with God, then we inherit the consequence of that sin (physical and spiritual death). We inherit the natural tendency to sin, which is due to a lack of friendship with God (lack of sanctifying grace in my theology). I think Max made mention of something similar to this in one of his responses. ((Death)) in Scripture also means spiritual death, just as ((salvation)) can mean physical and spiritual salvation."

Okay, let's take the word "guilt" out of the picture. What sin do we inherit from Adam??? If we inherit the "natural tendencey to sin", then it is possible for us to not sin.

I wrote, "Christ preaching to the spirits in prison had nothing to do with the removal of sin. Please see Preaching to the Spirits in Prison for a better explanation of this verse."

To which you replied, "Good info, but that discussion is for another thread. The bottom line is that everyone before Christ inherited the consequences (natural death and spiritual death) of Adam's sin. Somehow the saving act of Christ was applied to the just so they could enter the Kingdom of God."

The Bible teaches each person is accountable to God for their own sins, not the sins of others. Ask your Jewish friends, the concept of "original sin" is foreign to Judaism.

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin," --Deuteronomy 24:16 We are not held responsible to God for Adamss sin. Babies are not born separated from God, therefore there is no need to remove "original sin." Baptizing an infant is an attempt to remove sin that is not there. Sin is disobeying the commandments of God. Sin is falling short of His laws. What command has an infant disobeyed??? Infants are not lost.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 09, 2004.

Lets lose this thread and start a part two, shall we?

-- ZAROVE (zaroff3@juno.com), August 09, 2004.

>Okay, do we inherit the sin of Adam or not???<

Yes.

>Are we born sinners???<

Yes.

>If so, then we inherit the guilt of his sin.<

We aren't speaking of guilt. We are speaking of sin. Sin is not guilt. You tried to swap the word "sin" with "guilt" to avoid the point that was made.

>If we are talking about infants (and we are) this question is irrelevant because infants have no sin to be charged with.<

Let me answer it for you: Unbelief is sin.

>Infants don't have the capacity to have faith, so they cannot sin.<

I've already proven infants have the capacity to have faith. Whether they can or cannot manifest their sin or not isn't the point. The point is they've inherited a sinful nature... a fallen nature in their flesh.

>Through the "Holy Spirit". If the Holy Spirit were not present, then there would be no discernment.<

Of course. This does not exclude faith. John responded with joy. Whether the Spirit prompted him or not, he still discerned that the Lord was near. It wasn't just the Spirit that discerned Jesus, it was John. And you cannot discern without faith...

Also:

dis·cern (d-sûrn, -zûrn) 1. To perceive with the eyes or intellect; detect.

Tell me, how exactly did John perceive and discern Jesus was near and respond with joy, yet he had no faith? The Holy Spirit definitely helped John detect Jesus, but John was the one detecting. How do you detect a fact you cannot see without faith?

>Again, this was possible only through the Holy Spirit that dwelled in John.<

Obviously the Spirit helped John detect Jesus, but again, it was John detecting. How does a person detect someone he cannot see and respond with joy without some measure of faith?

The Holy Spirit didn't just kick John in the bum. John knew something. How do you know something you cannot see without faith?

>Okay if infants have "their own language" as you state then where are the interpreters??? Mom and Dad don't cut it... Where are the books or dictionaries that show the English or other languages of the world that give the definitions for the words for the corresponding infant communication (i.e. crying)???<

Again, you don't know what language is. It's almost pathetic that I have to post dictionary definitions for you...

lan·guage (lnggwj) n. 1. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.

The definition of "Language" says nothing about a requirement that it's a widely known language recorded in books or dictionaries. Many languages were extinct before they were ever written. One person can invent a language only he himself knows - or just one other person. Regadless, infants can communicate. That's the point. Admit it and stop arguing about terms you do not even have a basic dictionary understanding of.

>If a "kiss is a form of language", then where is this stated???<

Wow... Pass the dictionary to Kevin, please. Kevin, look up LANGUAGE. There's no requirement beyond that definition for it to qualify as language.

>Where are the scripture(s) besides John the Baptist that prove that infants have faith???<

Jesus said infants can give God glory with their mouths.

>Okay, where is the dictionary that explains this language???<

First, look up LANGUAGE in an English dictionary. Then, come back and see if you even need to ask that question.

>Okay Max, let's put your credibility on the line, where is your proof that infants can reason??? <

Do a simple google search... type in: "can infants think?"

Since your personal experience is obviously limited, it may be a good subject for you to investigate.

Enlightening site: http://www.turben.com/

>If I have lost my credibility as you allege, you certainly have not proven this to be true.<

Let me prove it now:

Kevin said, "Infants cannot reason."

Now check the science. You'll discover how far behind you are.

Thankfully, God isn't behind. ;)

>The gospel is God's power to salvation. Unless one obeys the gospel of Christ they are not saved. An infant is not capable of obeying the gospel.<

If infants can receive the kingdom of God, they can obey the gospel.

Jesus went around preaching the gospel of God's Kingdom. It makes no sense that Jesus would say infants can receive God's Kingdom but can't obey the gospel. Receiving the Kingdom IS obeying the gospel.

Can infants believe? Yes. Can infants be baptized? Yes.

>Where is your evidence that infants can "give praise to God"???<

Jesus said it:

"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read, " 'From the lips of children and infants You have ordained praise' ?" - Matt. 21:16

Infants can praise God. The religious leaders were telling Jesus to shut the kids up in God's House. Jesus happily responded to the religious leaders by telling them even children and infants can praise God. It's not reserved for adults.

>If salvation is located outside of the word of God, then I challenge you to prove it!<

Salvation is not outside the Word of God, but the Word of God is not limited to the Bible as your oral tradition tells you.

>Is there another Bible that I am not aware of??? Has God communicated His will in some other form??? Please do explain Max.<

God can communicate through dreams. Jesus can appear to whomever he wishes. He appeared to Paul. A child can believe in Jesus by looking at a picture and someone explaining it - all without using the Bible. There are tons of possibilities outside of the Bible alone. God is alive and He can express the Truth in whatever form He wishes. Your oral tradition hates that fact, but it's true.

>Where does one learn of Jesus except through the Bible???<

How did the first Christians learn about Jesus? Witnesses. The Bible was decades if not centuries in the works... A person can never read the Bible, but can still come to trust in Jesus, just by hearing His Name and that He's the Savior.

>So, an infant who is secure has hope??? What is the infant's hope Max???<

The infant's hope is in his mother's ability to protect and provide for him forever. This brings security.

If you're a Christian, you have security in the hope that God will always protect and provide for you forever, even through death.

>How can an infant hope for something they have no knowledge of??? This is not possible.<

An infant knows his mother will protect and provide no matter what. He even calls on his mother to help when he is in need. How can an infant call on his mother with a cry if he has no hope in his mother's provision?

>Please notice that it was the "Holy Spirit" that caused the infant John to leap for joy.<

Please notice the Holy Spirit did not just make John move without John knowing what was going on. It wasn't a mindless kick in the bum by the Holy Spirit to make it look like John was excited. John WAS IN FACT EXCITED because he KNEW who was near. It wasn't a trick by the Holy Spirit to make it look like John was excited about something. John knew what was going on. John was excited.

>Do we inherit sin???<

Yes. Sin exists in our flesh. Our flesh will die because it has sin.

>This is not true. Paul stated he was alive before the Law came.<

Paul was alive in the sense that he was not under conviction and condemnation. This does not necessarily mean he was alive to God.

>The text states when the "commandment came (the law), sin revived and I died." How could Paul have "died" if he was already a sinner???<

Paul died in the sense that he could no longer view himself as innocent. The Law proved he was a sinner. The Law even brings out sin in us. The Law does not cause sin, it brings to light what is already inside us.

>Does the deaf/blind person have the capability to learn how to learn braille??<

I guess it's just too bad for all the deaf/blind people before braille was invented in the early 1800's.

You're the type of person Jesus would have a major word with for holding so tightly to your strict oral traditions that you neglect God's grace and power to reach outside common reigious means and save whomever He wills.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 09, 2004.

"We aren't speaking of guilt. We are speaking of sin. Sin is not guilt. You tried to swap the word "sin" with "guilt" to avoid the point that was made."

How can we inherit Adam's sin??? We will be judged by our own works, not those of someone else.

"Let me answer it for you: Unbelief is sin."

Again, an infant is incapable of belief so it is not a sin.

Ask your Catholic friends, they do not believe that an infant can have faith.

"I've already proven infants have the capacity to have faith."

No you have not proven any such thing.

"Whether they can or cannot manifest their sin or not isn't the point. The point is they've inherited a sinful nature... a fallen nature in their flesh."

Sin is trasngression of God's law. What infant is guilty of transgressing His law??? Just because we have the propensity to sin does not mean that we are born sinners.

"Of course. This does not exclude faith. John responded with joy. Whether the Spirit prompted him or not, he still discerned that the Lord was near. It wasn't just the Spirit that discerned Jesus, it was John. And you cannot discern without faith..."

The whole point is there would have been no discernment without the Holy Spirit. Faith had nothing to do with it.

"dis·cern (d-sûrn, -zûrn) 1. To perceive with the eyes or intellect; detect. Tell me, how exactly did John perceive and discern Jesus was near and respond with joy, yet he had no faith? The Holy Spirit definitely helped John detect Jesus, but John was the one detecting. How do you detect a fact you cannot see without faith?"

Again, it was only through the Holy Spirit that this infant was able to leap in Elizabeth's womb. John could not discern this fact without the Holy Spirit present.

"Obviously the Spirit helped John detect Jesus, but again, it was John detecting. How does a person detect someone he cannot see and respond with joy without some measure of faith?"

How do you know it was "John detecting"??? The text does not state this, so this must be your opinion Max. Please explain how an infant in one womb can detect another infant in another womb??? This is not possible and the only way this actually happened was because of the presence of the Holy Spirit.

"The Holy Spirit didn't just kick John in the bum. John knew something. How do you know something you cannot see without faith?"

How did you come to this conclusion??? This must again be your opinion because the text says nothing of the sort.

"Again, you don't know what language is. It's almost pathetic that I have to post dictionary definitions for you... lan·guage (lnggwj) n. 1. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols. The definition of "Language" says nothing about a requirement that it's a widely known language recorded in books or dictionaries. Many languages were extinct before they were ever written. One person can invent a language only he himself knows - or just one other person. Regadless, infants can communicate. That's the point. Admit it and stop arguing about terms you do not even have a basic dictionary understanding of. "

Again, you are the one who is mistaken about language. Crying is a form of communication but it most certainly is not a language. Where is it stated that "crying" is a language of it's own??? You most certainly will not find this in your dictionary definition above. You can continue to spout that crying is a language but you really do not know what you are talking about.

"Wow... Pass the dictionary to Kevin, please. Kevin, look up LANGUAGE. There's no requirement beyond that definition for it to qualify as language."

Again, a "kiss" is not any type of language even by the definition of language in the dictionary.

"Jesus said infants can give God glory with their mouths."

This does not prove that infants have the capability of faith now does it??? I am still waiting for you to prove that infants can give God glory with their mouths.

"First, look up LANGUAGE in an English dictionary. Then, come back and see if you even need to ask that question."

Crying and kissing are not languages.

"Do a simple google search... type in: "can infants think?"

I didn't ask if infants can "think" I asked if they could "reason".

"Since your personal experience is obviously limited, it may be a good subject for you to investigate."

Again Max proves he does not know what he is talking about. How can he know about "my personal experience" since he does not know me???

"Let me prove it now: Kevin said, "Infants cannot reason." Now check the science. You'll discover how far behind you are. Thankfully, God isn't behind. ;)"

Max really offered a lot of proof to prove me wrong in his post above didn't he??? Not... :-)

"If infants can receive the kingdom of God, they can obey the gospel."

Nice try. Obedience to the gospel requires on to have 1. Faith, 2. Repentance, 3. Confession, 4. Baptism for the remission of sins. Infants cannot do 1 through 3, so they cannot obey the gospel. Infants do not need to obey the gospel because they are not born sinners.

"Jesus went around preaching the gospel of God's Kingdom. It makes no sense that Jesus would say infants can receive God's Kingdom but can't obey the gospel. Receiving the Kingdom IS obeying the gospel."

He did not say that infants receive the kingdom. Go back and re-read what Jesus actually said.

"Can infants believe? Yes. Can infants be baptized? Yes."

Infants cannot believe and Max has not provided the evidence to show they are capable of belief. Yes, infants can be baptized. This is one of the few truthful things Max has said in his posts.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 10, 2004.

>How can we inherit Adam's sin???<

It's in our flesh. Our flesh is corrupt. Sin is corruption. It lacks. That's why it dies.

>We will be judged by our own works, not those of someone else. <

You don't get it. Sin is more than actions. It's a corruption.

>Again, an infant is incapable of belief so it is not a sin. <

Infants can believe. John believed. Jesus said infants can give God praise.

>Sin is trasngression of God's law. What infant is guilty of transgressing His law???<

Sin is more than breaking the 10 commandments. It includes the corruption of our flesh that rebels against and hates God.

>Just because we have the propensity to sin does not mean that we are born sinners. <

Are you kidding?

Do you know what "propensity" means?

disposition; bias; bent; tendency; inclination; partiality or disposition in favor of something; a preference

So, you're saying your flesh can be born with a bias, bent, tendency, inclination, preference, and favorable disposition towards sin.... but it's not sinful. Please... Use your mind and stop relying so much on your church's oral tradition.

>The whole point is there would have been no discernment without the Holy Spirit. Faith had nothing to do with it. <

Of course. But, in order to discern a spiritual truth, you must have faith. John discerned. It takes faith and a bit of mental capacity to discern. Look up "discern" in your dictionary.

>Again, it was only through the Holy Spirit that this infant was able to leap in Elizabeth's womb. John could not discern this fact without the Holy Spirit present. <

John discerned Jesus was the Son of God. You said it.

You cannot discern Jesus is the Son of God without believing Jesus is the Son of God.

Nobody can discern or believe Jesus is the Son of God without the Holy Spirit revealing it to our hearts.

>How do you know it was "John detecting"??? The text does not state this, so this must be your opinion Max.<

You said John "discerned the Son of God in Mary" - and as I love to encourage you to do often... check the definition of "discern" and you'll see the word "detect" there. Discerning is detecting.

>Please explain how an infant in one womb can detect another infant in another womb??? This is not possible and the only way this actually happened was because of the presence of the Holy Spirit.<

The Holy Spirit allowed John to discerned/detect the presence of Jesus. It's not rocket science. The Holy Spirit can reveal things to the mind as He wills. But the fact remains. John comprehended the presence of Someone great and was excited.

>"The Holy Spirit didn't just kick John in the bum. John knew something. How do you know something you cannot see without faith?"

How did you come to this conclusion??? This must again be your opinion because the text says nothing of the sort. <

Re-read the verse. Re-read your own words. You and the Bible both claim John KNEW Someone great was present and responded with joy.

>Again, you are the one who is mistaken about language. Crying is a form of communication but it most certainly is not a language. Where is it stated that "crying" is a language of it's own??? You most certainly will not find this in your dictionary definition above. You can continue to spout that crying is a language but you really do not know what you are talking about.<

I refer you back to the basic definition of LANGUAGE. If you cannot accept basic definitons of English words, what's the point of us discussing anything?

>Again, a "kiss" is not any type of language even by the definition of language in the dictionary. <

Read the dictionary. A kiss is a form of communication, which is all that is required in order to qualify as LANGUAGE.

It may not be a formal world ethnic language, as your narrow idea of what a language is, but it is language. Ever heard the term "body language?"

>"Jesus said infants can give God glory with their mouths."

>I am still waiting for you to prove that infants can give God glory with their mouths. <

In the verse, Jesus clearly says that infants can give God glory with their mouths... then you ask me to prove it? Some people won't even take Jesus' clear words as proof. You can't prove anything to this sort of person.

>Crying and kissing are not languages. <

They are language. The English language sides with me on this one. They are not ethnic Languages, but they are certainly human language.

>I didn't ask if infants can "think" I asked if they could "reason".<

HA!!!! You're hilarious, Kevin.

think (thngk) To have or formulate in the mind. To reason about or reflect on; ponder: To decide by reasoning.

>Again Max proves he does not know what he is talking about.<

Sorry, I'm still chuckling about this: "I didn't ask if infants can "think" I asked if they could "reason".

>How can he know about "my personal experience" since he does not know me??? <

Intuition.

>Obedience to the gospel requires on to have 1. Faith, 2. Repentance, 3. Confession, 4. Baptism for the remission of sins. Infants cannot do 1 through 3, so they cannot obey the gospel.<

This is your oral tradition interpretation of obeying the gospel. But, for your sake: Infants can do #1, don't need to do #2 since they're already complying with #1 (no need to TURN/REPENT to faith if you already have faith) and #3 will happen as they learn to talk. Some young children can speak.

>Infants do not need to obey the gospel because they are not born sinners.<

The good news of the Kingdom is meant for all humans, not just those who are old enough. (Jesus said infants can receive the Kingdom.) Christ died for all humans who are subject to the curse of death, not just those "of age." Infants are subject to the curse of death.

>He did not say that infants receive the kingdom. Go back and re- read what Jesus actually said.<

A literal reading of that verse backs my position. It does nothing for your position - except throw it into doubt.

>Infants cannot believe and Max has not provided the evidence to show they are capable of belief.<

John believed. Jesus said babies could praise God (which requires faith) and Jesus said you have to receive the Kingdom like an infant.

All these are evidence enough to believe that infants can have a certain level of belief... obviously not a highly developed faith like an adults, but their faith definitely exists.

Science shows that infants can believe. If they can reason, they can believe, since you cannot reason unless you have a certain level of faith in the facts you are thinking about.

Science, logic, experience, and the Bible give support to my view. The only reason you can't accept infants as having faith is because you're stuck under your oral tradition. Also, your proud side won't allow you to imagine that such a helpless simple child could have a connection to the spiritual realm outside of knowing how to interpret Bible verses and other religious exercises.

Do you have faith when you sleep? or does your faith only exist when you are consciously awake and thinking about the Bible?

No offense, but like your knowledge of the dictionary, your idea of the nature of faith is somewhat limited. Thankfully, God will accept the unlearned into heaven - if they truly trust in His mercy.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 11, 2004.

"It's in our flesh. Our flesh is corrupt. Sin is corruption. It lacks. That's why it dies."

Just because we die does not mean that we inherit the sin of Adam.

"You don't get it. Sin is more than actions. It's a corruption."

No, it is you who do not get it Max. Sin is an act, not something that we inherit.

"Infants can believe. John believed. Jesus said infants can give God praise."

Are we to believe this (let me quote our moderator's favorite saying) just because....... Max says......... so.......???? When was the last time you heard an infant give praise??? Infants cannot believe, you have been deceived.

"Sin is more than breaking the 10 commandments. It includes the corruption of our flesh that rebels against and hates God."

Really??? Where did you get this information Max??? Certainly not from the word of God.

"Are you kidding?"

No, I wasn't kidding.

"Do you know what "propensity" means? disposition; bias; bent; tendency; inclination; partiality or disposition in favor of something; a preference"

Okay, does this mean that we "must" sin just because we have a "propensity" to do this??? Certainly not. Where is the word "must" or "will" in that definition. It isn't there is it Max.

"So, you're saying your flesh can be born with a bias, bent, tendency, inclination, preference, and favorable disposition towards sin.... but it's not sinful. Please... Use your mind and stop relying so much on your church's oral tradition."

You need to stop relying on what other people have misled you with and stick with the word of God. The Bible certainly does not paint infants or little children as sinners and I challenge you to prove this to be true.

"Of course. But, in order to discern a spiritual truth, you must have faith. John discerned. It takes faith and a bit of mental capacity to discern. Look up "discern" in your dictionary."

Again, no Holy Spirit, no recognition of the fact that Mary was carrying Jesus.

"John discerned Jesus was the Son of God. You said it."

Yea, through the Holy Spirit. Again, no Holy Spirit, no discernment.

"You cannot discern Jesus is the Son of God without believing Jesus is the Son of God."

Duh, the Holy Spirit is the one who did the discerning. How could an infant "know" that Jesus was the Son of God??? This is not possible and would not have been possible without the Holy Spirit.

"Nobody can discern or believe Jesus is the Son of God without the Holy Spirit revealing it to our hearts."

How does one get faith??? See Romans 10:17.

"You said John "discerned the Son of God in Mary" - and as I love to encourage you to do often... check the definition of "discern" and you'll see the word "detect" there. Discerning is detecting."

Yes, again this was only possible through the Holy Spirit.

"The Holy Spirit allowed John to discerned/detect the presence of Jesus. It's not rocket science. The Holy Spirit can reveal things to the mind as He wills. But the fact remains. John comprehended the presence of Someone great and was excited."

John had nothing to do with it...You just don't get it do you??? How many times do I have to tell you .... it was the Holy Spirit....

"Re-read the verse. Re-read your own words. You and the Bible both claim John KNEW Someone great was present and responded with joy."

Would John have been able to discern this fact without the Holy Spirit???? Certainly not...

"I refer you back to the basic definition of LANGUAGE. If you cannot accept basic definitons of English words, what's the point of us discussing anything?"

And I refer you to the fact that crying is "not" I repeat "not" a language. Just because something is a "form of communication" does not qualify it to be a language.

"Read the dictionary. A kiss is a form of communication, which is all that is required in order to qualify as LANGUAGE."

Again, giving someone a kiss is "not" I repeat "not" a language. Just because something is a "form of communication" does not qualify it to be a language.

"It may not be a formal world ethnic language, as your narrow idea of what a language is, but it is language. Ever heard the term "body language?"

Which is my point exactly, crying is "not" a language. Look up the words "crying" and "kissing" in the dictionary and you will not see them referred to as languages.

"In the verse, Jesus clearly says that infants can give God glory with their mouths... then you ask me to prove it? Some people won't even take Jesus' clear words as proof. You can't prove anything to this sort of person."

Again, have you ever heard an infant give God glory??? I didn't think so...

"They are language. The English language sides with me on this one. They are not ethnic Languages, but they are certainly human language."

Crying and kissing are not languages. They are forms of communication, nothing more.

"HA!!!! You're hilarious, Kevin."

So are you with some of the ridiculous things you have posted on this thread.

"think (thngk) To have or formulate in the mind. To reason about or reflect on; ponder: To decide by reasoning."

Which infant is able to accomplish this task??? Certainly you are able to provide proof right Max???

"Sorry, I'm still chuckling about this: "I didn't ask if infants can "think" I asked if they could "reason"."

You think you are "chuckling"... I am doing my best to keep from laughing every time I respond to one of your posts...

"Intuition."

Oh, so now you are a psychic??? Don't you remember what happened to the Psychic friends network a few years back...

"This is your oral tradition interpretation of obeying the gospel. But, for your sake: Infants can do #1, don't need to do #2 since they're already complying with #1 (no need to TURN/REPENT to faith if you already have faith) and #3 will happen as they learn to talk. Some young children can speak."

No oral tradition here, this is what the word of God states. We are not talking about "young children" we are talking about infants. Does God command repentance??? Since when do infants not have to repent??? Having faith is not the same thing as repentance. What infant can confess that Jesus is the son of God??? It must be through your "crying" or "kissing" language right Max???

"The good news of the Kingdom is meant for all humans, not just those who are old enough. (Jesus said infants can receive the Kingdom.) Christ died for all humans who are subject to the curse of death, not just those "of age." Infants are subject to the curse of death."

Infants are already in the kingdom and continue to be safe until they commit sin. We inherit the consequences of Adam's sin - death, not his "original sin".

"A literal reading of that verse backs my position. It does nothing for your position - except throw it into doubt."

Actually, a literal reading does nothing for your position.

"John believed. Jesus said babies could praise God (which requires faith) and Jesus said you have to receive the Kingdom like an infant."

Yes, through the Holy Spirit... Do I need to capitalize the words .... Holy Spirit... before you get it???

"All these are evidence enough to believe that infants can have a certain level of belief... obviously not a highly developed faith like an adults, but their faith definitely exists."

Infants do not have the capacity to have faith and you have not provided any evidence to prove otherwise.

"Science shows that infants can believe. If they can reason, they can believe, since you cannot reason unless you have a certain level of faith in the facts you are thinking about."

Where is this evidence that "science shows that infants can believe"??? Which infant has been able to tell them this??? Is this the same crowd who believe that evolution is true???

Why don't we get a Catholic perspective on whether infants have the capacity to believe???

I certainly would like to hear their point of view.

"Science, logic, experience, and the Bible give support to my view. The only reason you can't accept infants as having faith is because you're stuck under your oral tradition. Also, your proud side won't allow you to imagine that such a helpless simple child could have a connection to the spiritual realm outside of knowing how to interpret Bible verses and other religious exercises."

Sorry, your science, logic and experience might give support to your view however this view is not in accordance with the word of God. Infants are already in the kingdom and don't need to be saved. Your posts are mainly void of any Biblical support as you allege above.

"Do you have faith when you sleep? or does your faith only exist when you are consciously awake and thinking about the Bible?"

Having faith when you sleep has nothing to do whether or not an infant is able to believe.

"No offense, but like your knowledge of the dictionary, your idea of the nature of faith is somewhat limited. Thankfully, God will accept the unlearned into heaven - if they truly trust in His mercy."

Right Max... "No offense"... again Max must be a psychic... he claims again that my "idea of the nature of faith is somewhat limited." It is obvious to me and plain to anyone who reads these posts that Max does not have a clue what faith truly is... God will not accept the "unlearned into heaven"...again it is obvious that Max has not read his Bible...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 11, 2004.

"(let me quote our moderator's favorite saying) just because....... Max says......... so.......????" - Kevin

Sorry, you misquote me. I add some "....." between "Max says".

It should look like this:

Because.......Max.....says....so...?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 12, 2004.

>Just because we die does not mean that we inherit the sin of Adam.<

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and DEATH THROUGH SIN, and so DEATH SPREAD TO ALL MEN, because ALL SINNED."

Death comes to us through sin. DEATH SPREAD TO ALL MEN, because ALL SINNED.

>Sin is an act, not something that we inherit.<

Sin is also more than an act. Sin dwells in our fallen flesh nature.

The Bible says:

Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"

Sin is more than just actions- it's a matter of the heart.

Matthew 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts....These are what make a man unclean"

Thoughts can be evil. Thoughts aren't actions, yet they are sinful.

Romans 7:17 "As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is SIN LIVING IN ME."

Sin also lives in us. Sin is more than just actions.

Romans 17:18 "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my SINFUL NATURE."

Our human nature is sinful. Sin is more than just actions.

Ephesians 2:3 "gratifying the cravings of OUR SINFUL NATURE and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were BY NATURE objects of wrath."

Our human nature is sinful and deserving of wrath. Sin is more than just actions.

Romans 7:23 "making me a prisoner of the LAW OF SIN at work within my members."

Sin operates in our bodies. It's more than just actions.

Ephesians 4:22 "put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires"

Deceitful desires are corruption. Sin is more than an outward action.

Colossians 2:13 "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your SINFUL NATURE"

Could the Bible be more clear? We have a sinful nature. Sin is more than outward actions.

Jeremiah 16:12 "See how each of you is following the stubbornness of his EVIL HEART instead of obeying me."

Our hearts are evil/sinful. Sin is action - and more.

>When was the last time you heard an infant give praise???<

"From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise." -Jesus

>Okay, does this mean that we "must" sin just because we have a "propensity" to do this???<

The issue right now is not whether we "must" sin, but whether the INCLINATION to sin is also considered SIN.

I'm claiming that the propensity to sin itself is evil and sinful.

Genesis 8 "The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood."

Obviously, God has an issue with evil inclinations.

Genesis 6 "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every INCLINATION of the thoughts of his heart was only EVIL all the time."

The inclination of the heart is evil/sinful/bad.

>You need to stop relying on what other people have misled you with and stick with the word of God.<

Alright.

>The Bible certainly does not paint infants or little children as sinners and I challenge you to prove this to be true.<

Challenge accepted:

Isaiah 48:8 "Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth."

Job 25:4 "How can one born of woman be pure?"

Job 14:4 "Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!"

If a woman and man is impure, their child will be impure.

Job 15:14 "What is man, that he could be pure, or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?"

Nobody born of a woman is righteous... except Christ.

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

How much more clearly can it be expressed in the Bible?

Psalm 58:3 "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward"

Can it get any clearer than that?

Psalm 14 "The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any

who seek God. All have turned aside,they have together become CORRUPT; there is NO ONE who does good, not even one."

ALL are corrupt. There is no one who does good.

>Again, no Holy Spirit, no recognition of the fact that Mary was carrying Jesus.<

Yes, through the Holy Spirit John discerned Jesus. But, don't forget Mary's own words:

She said the "the babe leaped in my womb for joy"

The babe leaped for joy because He discerned the mother of the Son of God's presence. The Holy Spirit did not leap for joy. It was not a robotic experience for John. Even you said that John KNEW that Jesus was near.

Yes, the Holy Spirit helped John to KNOW the fact. But, it was John who leaped for joy in the womb, not the Holy Spirit. Again, it was not just a robotic shove from the Spirit.

John actually had JOY. Why? Because he KNEW something.

>Again, no Holy Spirit, no discernment.<

Yes. The Holy Sprit gave John the ability to KNOW and RESPOND with JOY. But, do not get confused. It was not the Holy Spirit who was responding with joy. It was John who was the happy hopper... and he was HAPPY because he KNEW something. The Holy Spirit relayed the knowledge to him.

You're thinking the Holy Spirit sort of jiggled John to make it seem like he was happy. Nah... little John was ACTUALLY HAPPY.

>Duh, the Holy Spirit is the one who did the discerning.<

Before you said John discerned.

>How could an infant "know" that Jesus was the Son of God???<

The same way any of us know. It's a revelation from the Father by the Holy Spirit.

>This is not possible and would not have been possible without the Holy Spirit.<

Correct. The Holy Spirit gave little John the revelation of who was in his presence. Little John RESPONDED with JOY to that revelation.

Little John wasn't just a blob in Mary's womb that got a little jolt by the Holy Spirit to make it look like the baby was excited. The Bible says, "the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

>John had nothing to do with it...You just don't get it do you??? How many times do I have to tell you .... it was the Holy Spirit....<

All I can tell you is that little John KNEW that Jesus was present and RESPONDED with JOY. "the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

You want to make it out to seem like the baby only seemed happy because the Holy Spirit was moving him around. The Bible claims the baby LEAPED FOR JOY.

>And I refer you to the fact that crying is "not" I repeat "not" a language. Just because something is a "form of communication" does not qualify it to be a language.<

All I can do at this point is refer you to Webster's for an English definition of the word LANGUAGE. It is not limited to a world language. It is a much broader term.

>Again, giving someone a kiss is "not" I repeat "not" a language.<

Body language.

>Just because something is a "form of communication" does not qualify it to be a language.<

Webster's English dictionary disagrees.

>Again, have you ever heard an infant give God glory??? I didn't think so...<

"From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise." -Jesus

>Crying and kissing are not languages. They are forms of communication, nothing more.<

Right. I know. And "thinking" and "reasoning" are two different things. OK. Sure Kevin. Whatever you say.

A form of communication is language. Look it up.

>Which infant is able to accomplish this task??? Certainly you are able to provide proof right Max???<

Infants can think. Do a google search. Investigate for yourself whether or not science supports my view. Or... you can stick to your oral traditions... whatever you prefer.

>Oh, so now you are a psychic??? Don't you remember what happened to the Psychic friends network a few years back...<

Intuition does not necessarily mean psychic. Can't you ever sense something without direct evidence? Some things add up to a very very good and reliable guess.

>Infants are already in the kingdom<

Nobody can enter the kingdom unless he is born of the Spirit.

>We inherit the consequences of Adam's sin - death, not his "original sin".<

Romans 5:19 "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners"

>Infants do not have the capacity to have faith and you have not provided any evidence to prove otherwise.<

Proof is relative to the judge of the evidence. You're the judge.

>Where is this evidence that "science shows that infants can believe"??? Which infant has been able to tell them this???<

I've come to "intuit" that you wouldn't accept it even if it was very good evidence. You're stuck under your oral traditions.

>Why don't we get a Catholic perspective on whether infants have the capacity to believe???<

Google it.

>Infants are already in the kingdom and don't need to be saved.<

I never said infants need to be saved. I said infants already believe, but they are born with bodies that have inherited sin. As they grow, sin begins to come alive more and more until faith is extinguished. When an adult is born again, this faith comes alive again.

>Having faith when you sleep has nothing to do whether or not an infant is able to believe.<

It shows that faith is not necessarily always something conscious.

Right Max... "No offense"... again Max must be a psychic... he claims again that my "idea of the nature of faith is somewhat limited."

You reject infants can have faith. That shows your idea is limited.

>It is obvious to me and plain to anyone who reads these posts that Max does not have a clue what faith truly is...<

I think my views challenge all to recognize that faith is not restricted to adult mumbo jumbo and religious terminology and hyper-technical theology... straining gnats etc. It is a simple pure thing that even a child can possess.

>God will not accept the "unlearned into heaven"<

Then, you've just contradicted yourself once again.

Are babies unlearned?

Does God accept them into heaven?

Lemme quote what you just said again: >God will not accept the "unlearned into heaven"<

Keep studying. ;)

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 12, 2004.

"Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and DEATH THROUGH SIN, and so DEATH SPREAD TO ALL MEN, because ALL SINNED."

This verse does not teach that we inherit the sin of Adam now does it Max???

"Death comes to us through sin. DEATH SPREAD TO ALL MEN, because ALL SINNED."

What is sin???

"Sin is also more than an act. Sin dwells in our fallen flesh nature."

Sin does not dwell in us until we sin...

"The Bible says: Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"

This does not mean that sin dwells in us now does it???

The Bible also says that foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, does this mean that they are sinful??? Certainly not...

"Matthew 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts....These are what make a man unclean"

Okay, and out of the heart also comes praise...

"Thoughts can be evil. Thoughts aren't actions, yet they are sinful."

Thoughts can also be pure...

"Romans 7:17 "As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is SIN LIVING IN ME."

Sin lives in us when we allow it to live in us... How does that passage go... "Do not let sin reign in your body"

"Sin also lives in us. Sin is more than just actions."

Only if we let it...

"Romans 17:18 "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my SINFUL NATURE."

If nothing good lived in Paul, then he could not offer praise to God.

"Our human nature is sinful. Sin is more than just actions."

Yes, we are prone to sin, but this does not mean that we have to sin.

"Ephesians 2:3 "gratifying the cravings of OUR SINFUL NATURE and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were BY NATURE objects of wrath."

This was in their old state before they were saved.

"Our human nature is sinful and deserving of wrath. Sin is more than just actions."

Sin is transgression of God's law.

"Romans 7:23 "making me a prisoner of the LAW OF SIN at work within my members."

What law of sin???

"Sin operates in our bodies. It's more than just actions."

Sin only operates in our bodies if we let it...

"Ephesians 4:22 "put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires"

According to you, one cannot put off sin since it dwells in our bodies however this verse tells us that we can do this very thing.

"Deceitful desires are corruption. Sin is more than an outward action."

See my response above.

"Colossians 2:13 "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your SINFUL NATURE"

Please notice the text states "were dead".

"Could the Bible be more clear? We have a sinful nature. Sin is more than outward actions."

Could the Bible also be more clear that we can "put off" our sinful nature???

"Jeremiah 16:12 "See how each of you is following the stubbornness of his EVIL HEART instead of obeying me." Our hearts are evil/sinful. Sin is action - and more."

Sin is an act. What is the definition of sin???

"From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise." - Jesus"

Obviously you are mistaken for there are no infants that are able to give praise.

"The issue right now is not whether we "must" sin, but whether the INCLINATION to sin is also considered SIN."

Yes, the issue is whether or not we must sin. One can by the Holy Spirit put to death the deeds of the body. (Romans 8:13).

"I'm claiming that the propensity to sin itself is evil and sinful."

And this does not agree with the word of God. You can claim this all you want, the fact of the matter is we do not inherit sin from any other person alive or dead.

"Genesis 8 "The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood." Obviously, God has an issue with evil inclinations."

Okay, this still does not prove that we are all sinful. What did God have to say about Noah???

"Genesis 6 "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every INCLINATION of the thoughts of his heart was only EVIL all the time." The inclination of the heart is evil/sinful/bad."

Again, what did God say about Noah??? Was he a "righteous man"??? How could this be if all men are sinful???

I wrote, "The Bible certainly does not paint infants or little children as sinners and I challenge you to prove this to be true."

To which Max replied, "Challenge accepted: Isaiah 48:8 "Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth."

How is an infant a "rebel"???

"Job 25:4 "How can one born of woman be pure?"

Was Jesus born of a woman???

"Job 14:4 "Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!"

This verse does not prove that we are born sinners.

"If a woman and man is impure, their child will be impure."

Mary was "impure", so how could Jesus be born "pure"???

"Job 15:14 "What is man, that he could be pure, or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?"

How many men have been called righteous in the Old Testament??? How is this possible if one is born of a woman???

"Nobody born of a woman is righteous... except Christ."

How many men did God call righteous in the Old Testament??? Was David a man after God's own heart???

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

This verse has nothing to do with the sin of Adam nor does it mention it.

"How much more clearly can it be expressed in the Bible?"

How much more do you need to prove that you do not know what you are talking about???

"Psalm 58:3 "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward"

This verse states they go astray, they are not born astray.

"Can it get any clearer than that?"

Yes, can it get any clearer Max???

"Psalm 14 "The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside,they have together become CORRUPT; there is NO ONE who does good, not even one."

Do any seek after God??? Assuredly I say to you that some do seek God.

"ALL are corrupt. There is no one who does good."

No, we are not born corrupt, that is your opinion and you are mistaken.

"Yes, through the Holy Spirit John discerned Jesus. But, don't forget Mary's own words: She said the "the babe leaped in my womb for joy" The babe leaped for joy because He discerned the mother of the Son of God's presence. The Holy Spirit did not leap for joy. It was not a robotic experience for John. Even you said that John KNEW that Jesus was near."

The babe was filled with the Holy Spirit...this how the babe was able to leap in Elizabeth's womb.

"Yes, the Holy Spirit helped John to KNOW the fact. But, it was John who leaped for joy in the womb, not the Holy Spirit. Again, it was not just a robotic shove from the Spirit."

How do you know that the Holy Spirit did not directly operate on the heart of John in such a manner that he did not have a choice but to leap for joy???

"John actually had JOY. Why? Because he KNEW something."

The only way he "knew" was through the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, he would have known "nothing"...

"Yes. The Holy Sprit gave John the ability to KNOW and RESPOND with JOY. But, do not get confused. It was not the Holy Spirit who was responding with joy. It was John who was the happy hopper... and he was HAPPY because he KNEW something. The Holy Spirit relayed the knowledge to him."

The Holy Spirit caused the babe to leap in the womb. How do you know it was "not the Holy Spirit who was responding with joy"???

"You're thinking the Holy Spirit sort of jiggled John to make it seem like he was happy. Nah... little John was ACTUALLY HAPPY."

You ae mistakenly thinking that an infant has the capacity to discern another infant outside of Elizabeth's body...this cannot happen...

"Before you said John discerned."

Yea, through the Holy Spirit.

"The same way any of us know. It's a revelation from the Father by the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Spirit does not operate directly on the hearts of us today to cause us to believe.

"Correct. The Holy Spirit gave little John the revelation of who was in his presence. Little John RESPONDED with JOY to that revelation."

If the Holy Spirit were not present, there would have been no leaping in the womb.

"All I can do at this point is refer you to Webster's for an English definition of the word LANGUAGE. It is not limited to a world language. It is a much broader term."

And I will repeat myself again: And I refer you to the fact that crying is "not" I repeat "not" a language. Just because something is a "form of communication" does not qualify it to be a language.

I wrote, "Just because something is a "form of communication" does not qualify it to be a language."

To which Max replied, "Webster's English dictionary disagrees."

Again, I will repead myself: And I refer you to the fact that crying is "not" I repeat "not" a language. Just because something is a "form of communication" does not qualify it to be a language.

"From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise." - Jesus"

You didn't answer the question.

I wrote, "Crying and kissing are not languages. They are forms of communication, nothing more."

To which Max replied, "Right. I know. And "thinking" and "reasoning" are two different things. OK. Sure Kevin. Whatever you say."

Dear readers, please notice that earlier Max said: "Webster's English dictionary disagrees." You figure it out...

"A form of communication is language. Look it up."

And I told you to look up the words crying and kissing didn't I????

"Nobody can enter the kingdom unless he is born of the Spirit."

Of such are the kingdom of God... Have you read these words Max???

"Romans 5:19 "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners"

Sin is in the world, this does not automatically make us sinners.

I wrote, "Where is this evidence that "science shows that infants can believe"??? Which infant has been able to tell them this???"

To which Max replied, "I've come to "intuit" that you wouldn't accept it even if it was very good evidence. You're stuck under your oral traditions."

That is the answer I expected from someone who is not able to provide credible proof to back up his assertion.

"Then, you've just contradicted yourself once again. Are babies unlearned?"

I have already told you that infants are already in the kingdom of God. No contradiction here...

"Does God accept them into heaven?"

Yes He does...

"Lemme quote what you just said again: >God will not accept the "unlearned into heaven"

I wasn't talking about infants...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 12, 2004.

>"Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and DEATH THROUGH SIN, and so DEATH SPREAD TO ALL MEN, because ALL SINNED."

This verse does not teach that we inherit the sin of Adam now does it Max???<

Death spread to ALL humans... Why?

"because ALL SINNED"

>What is sin???<

Sin is an inward rebellious nature in the heart. Sin is also any actions which manifest outwardly as evil deeds.

>Sin does not dwell in us until we sin...<

Is an evil desire sin?

>"The Bible says: Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"

This does not mean that sin dwells in us now does it???<

I'll let you decide. A heart that is deceitful is sinful.

>Sin lives in us when we allow it to live in us... How does that passage go... "Do not let sin reign in your body"<

If sin can reign in the body, it's more than just an action. It's a corruption.

>Only if we let it...<

Do you let it?

>"Romans 17:18 "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my SINFUL NATURE."

If nothing good lived in Paul, then he could not offer praise to God.<

You misread that scripture. Read it again. Nothing good lives in Paul's SINFUL NATURE. Do not forget Christians also possess the DIVINE NATURE if they are children of God.

>Yes, we are prone to sin, but this does not mean that we have to sin.<

Whether we have to outwardly sin or not, we are already sinning by having an attitude which harbors and loves sin.

>"Ephesians 2:3 "gratifying the cravings of OUR SINFUL NATURE and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were BY NATURE objects of wrath."

This was in their old state before they were saved.<

So you admit that sin is more than an action - it's also a state?

>Sin is transgression of God's law.<

Yes, God's Law applies even to the attitude of our hearts: "Thou shalt not covet."

>Sin only operates in our bodies if we let it...<

Sin is in our bodies. It does not manifest if we restrain it.

>According to you, one cannot put off sin since it dwells in our bodies however this verse tells us that we can do this very thing.<

The verse says we can live according to the new righteous nature and leave behind the old person we used to be. We don't need to give in to our sinful nature if we live by the Spirit.

>"From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise." - Jesus"

Obviously you are mistaken for there are no infants that are able to give praise.<

Are you speaking to Jesus? or me?

>Yes, the issue is whether or not we must sin. One can by the Holy Spirit put to death the deeds of the body. (Romans 8:13).<

The issue was not whether we "must" sin. However, if that's where you want to go...

Do you ever choose to sin?

If so, why do you choose to sin if you have no sinfulnes in you?

>Again, what did God say about Noah??? Was he a "righteous man"??? How could this be if all men are sinful???<

Hmmm... does the Bible contradict itself? Noah was righteous because he believed in the Lord. All the rest had abandoned faith. This does not mean Noah was perfect and sinless. It simply means God saw Noah as righteous. Noah was not a sinless man.

>Isaiah 48:8 "Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth."

How is an infant a "rebel"???<

The Bible said it, not me.

>Was Jesus born of a woman???<

>"Job 25:4 "How can one born of woman be pure?"

Was Jesus born of a woman???<

Does the Bible contradict itself? The Bible asks a question here. How can a man who is born of a woman be pure? Answer: He must be the Son of God.

>"Job 14:4 "Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!"

This verse does not prove that we are born sinners.<

If we are impure, we are not sinless.

>Mary was "impure", so how could Jesus be born "pure"???<

Jesus was the Holy Son of God. That's how.

>How many men have been called righteous in the Old Testament??? How is this possible if one is born of a woman???<

"Righteous" does not mean "sinless." All men sin. If you claim to have no sin, you're a liar.

>"Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

This verse has nothing to do with the sin of Adam nor does it mention it.<

Well, if it's not Adam's sinfulness, whose sinfulness is it?

If you inherit a million dollars, it's your money. You do not need to mention that it came from your grandparents, although you can also safely say it's their money. You inherited sinfulness. You own it now. Your body is subject to its curse - death.

>How much more do you need to prove that you do not know what you are talking about???<

Great response.

>"Psalm 58:3 "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward"

This verse states they go astray, they are not born astray.<

From the womb they are wayward. This refers to even before birth.

>Yes, can it get any clearer Max???<

Great response.

>"there is NO ONE who does good, not even one."

Do any seek after God??? Assuredly I say to you that some do seek God.<

I guess the Bible is contradicting itself again, eh?

>No, we are not born corrupt, that is your opinion and you are mistaken.<

All you can do now is say, "No Max, you're wrong."

I know, I'm wrong according to your elders' oral tradition. I'm sorry that you're stuck inbetween and having your loyalty to them tested.

Loyalty to Truth is what matters most, though.

You cannot offer even one scripture. Aren't you the one who likes to call one the Bible as the last authority?

>The babe was filled with the Holy Spirit...this how the babe was able to leap in Elizabeth's womb.<

I never denied that little John had the Holy Spirit in him. I'm saying that little John KNEW who was present and RESPONDED by leaping for JOY. Whether the Holy Spirit played a part in this is not the point.

The point is: JOHN KNEW. JOHN RESPONDED.

John was not jolted by the Holy Spirit to pretend like he was full of joy. The little guy was full of joy. He knew Who was there.

>How do you know that the Holy Spirit did not directly operate on the heart of John in such a manner that he did not have a choice but to leap for joy???<

If you're full of joy, it's sort of hard to not choose to respond.

Beyond that, the Bible clearly says "the babe leaped in my womb for joy"

"the babe leaped in my womb for joy"

The babe leaped for what?

JOY

Why did the babe leap?

JOY

Who had joy?

THE BABE

How did the babe respond?

HE LEAPED

So, since the babe was the one who knew Jesus was present, the bagbe was the one who was happy, the babe was the one who leaped, it's safe to say that the Holy Spirit may have played a role, but it was not a mechanical jolt that left the babe jiggling in Mary's womb.

"the babe leaped in my womb for joy"

Why did Little John leap? Was he jiggled by the Holy Spirit? Or did he respond and leap for joy?

Admit it. The Holy Spirit was not playing a trick. "the babe leaped in my womb for joy"

The babe was full of joy.

Babies aren't as dumb as you think. That's what it boils down to.

>The Holy Spirit caused the babe to leap in the womb. How do you know it was "not the Holy Spirit who was responding with joy"???<

Because Mary said, "the babe leaped in my womb for joy." It does not say, "The Holy Spirit was happy and made the baby inside me leap."

Because "the babe leaped in my womb for joy"

Because it was the babe who leaped for joy, not the Holy Spirit. Why would the Holy Spirit "leap for joy" and make Mary think it was the baby... she said, "the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

>You ae mistakenly thinking that an infant has the capacity to discern another infant outside of Elizabeth's body...this cannot happen...<

It did happen. The Bible says it. The Holy Spirit revealed it to this little infant and the little guy turned into a happy hopper!

>The Holy Spirit does not operate directly on the hearts of us today to cause us to believe.<

Are you kidding?

John 16:8 "When He comes, He will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin.. etc."

It's the Holy Spirit that is there convicting you that you're wrong and that you need to trust in Christ's grace alone or face judgment for your sins.

The sword of the Spirit is the Word. The Spirit still uses the Word on the hearts of men.

You cannot believe that "Jesus is the Son of God" unless the Holy Spirit reveals what that phrase actually means.

>If the Holy Spirit were not present, there would have been no leaping in the womb.<

Of course, but the fact remains: Little John was happy and hoppin' cuz he knew something special was happenin'

>And I will repeat myself again: And I refer you to the fact that crying is "not" I repeat "not" a language. Just because something is a "form of communication" does not qualify it to be a language.<

Before you break down and start crying this from the house tops, I just want you to know that the English language is very funny. When I said babies have their own language, I meant it in the braod sense of the term as you find in the dictionary.. that is, babies have their own form of communication.

I'm sure you can agree this is true, especially since Mary knew her child was leaping for joy. How did Mary know her babe was happy? Did the baby tell her? Yes, but not with words. He LEAPED.

>Again, I will repead myself: And I refer you to the fact that crying is "not" I repeat "not" a language. Just because something is a "form of communication" does not qualify it to be a language.<

You can repeat yourself all day long... that doesn't change the English language or the words written in the dictionary. Language is a form of communication. Acknowledge and move on, man.

>To which Max replied, "Right. I know. And "thinking" and "reasoning" are two different things. OK. Sure Kevin. Whatever you say."

Dear readers, please notice that earlier Max said: "Webster's English dictionary disagrees." You figure it out...<

Earlier you said "thinking" and "reasoning" were two different things. Don't make me quote you. I think you should let it go to avoid any more embarrassment.

>And I told you to look up the words crying and kissing didn't I????<

Yes, I've read those in the dictionary before. Want me to quote for you?

kiss v. To touch or caress with the lips as an expression of affection, greeting, respect, or amorousness.

ex·press v. To manifest or communicate,

Put 2 & 2 together, Kevin.

1. Kissing is an expression of affection. 2. Expression is communication. 3. Kissing is a form of communication.

Even if you don't get it... the point was that babies can communicate.

If babies can communicate, that means they have something to communicate.

If babies have something to communicate, they are not just little dumb blobs devoid of any thought in their minds.

In fact, and I know you love hearing this, but little John had a thought from the Holy Spirit in his mind that made him hoppin' happy!

>Of such are the kingdom of God... Have you read these words Max???<

Yep. Combine that with what Jesus said:

"Nobody can enter the kingdom unless he is born of the Spirit."

This means infants are born of the Spirit already, if they can enter the kingdom of God.

"Nobody can enter the kingdom unless he is born of the Spirit."

Can infants enter the kingdom of God?

What? Yes?

Then that must mean they are born of the Spirit, since Jesus said:

"Nobody can enter the kingdom unless he is born of the Spirit."

>That is the answer I expected from someone who is not able to provide credible proof to back up his assertion.<

Plenty of proof in this thread. Most of it is flying right over someone's head.

>I have already told you that infants are already in the kingdom of God. No contradiction here...<

You said, >God will not accept the "unlearned into heaven"<

If that's the case, then you must say that infants are "learned" enough to be accepted.

>I wasn't talking about infants...<

You didn't say anything about age. You said, >God will not accept the "unlearned into heaven"<

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 12, 2004.

This thread will now be closed due to it's enormous size. For those interested in discussing things further, the expansion thread can be found here, labled as "Original Sin (Part 2).

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 12, 2004.