If God created the souls of birthed babies, why they are under the bondage of sins ?

[Marathoner]

An infant cannot repent, for they don't understand what they do. Infants are not pure; they are blameless. In the same the same way, the Lord regarded children as blameless. 

Then some children were brought to Him so that He would lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Leave the children alone, and do not forbid them to come to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” After laying His hands on them, He departed from there. (Matthew 19:13-15 NASB)

This has been discussed elsewhere on the forum in the past: there is a difference between spotless and blameless... perfect and justified... corruptible and incorruptible. It would be worthwhile to focus upon what matters --- the topic --- and avoid casting aspersions upon others with whom we disagree.   

Edited February 2, 2023 by Marathoner

[Dead Orthodoxy]

1 hour ago, Marathoner said:

the topic --- and avoid casting aspersions upon others with whom we disagree.

 

On 2/1/2023 at 11:45 AM, Marathoner said:

This teaching survived in the errors of Augustine, which was passed down to this very day.

You cast aspersions upon others with whom YOU disagree with.  I affirm Augustine, but I defend from Scripture.   Let's not be hypocritical.

 

1 hour ago, Marathoner said:

Infants are not pure; they are blameless.

Chapter and verse please.   This is plain word salad.

 

2 hours ago, Marathoner said:

We are not punished for the sin of Adam. I stand by that assertion, and I furnished scripture which verifies that no one is punished for the sins of another (Ezekiel 18).

In the OT only, we have many examples of infants and children being judged and punished for the sins of their  parents and elders.  This judgment only occurs in the OT as they were covenant people and God can and did judge them.  We have no examples from the NT and therefore Ez 18:20 stands in the NT only.

1)  Flood as prime example.  All unborn, infants, toddlers, and adolescents are killed by the flood and fall under eternal condemnation, based upon the sins of their parents, and grandparents participated in.   The flood was just because all sin whether original or actual is a capital offense. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

Inherit natural depravity on all humans is evident in the Flood.  Infants who are incapable of actual sin, here destroyed as well as adults.  The cause of death for infants is original sin, because they are not capable of actual sin.

Either they were truly guilty or God was punishing the innocent. If they were not guilty of breaking a known commandment, then they must somehow be guilty because of their relationship to Adam. They must share in his guilt. They must have "sinned in Adam." That is the truth of imputation.

 

 

 

[Dead Orthodoxy]

2 hours ago, Marathoner said:

You assume that I'm an evangelical; I am not. It would be good if you focused upon the topic and not the person, Dead Orthodoxy.

We are not punished for the sin of Adam. I stand by that assertion, and I furnished scripture which verifies that no one is punished for the sins of another (Ezekiel 18). I then pointed toward more scriptural foundation by pointing out how the dead are resurrected to be judged according to their works (Revelation 20:12), not according to the works of one man. 

We know that whatever issues from the heart defiles a man, but this is not a teaching that everything which issues from the heart defiles. You're imposing extra-scriptural doctrine upon the words of the Lord. Loving a daughter, a son, a mother, or a wife issues forth from the heart: is that therefore defilement, my friend? It isn't. 

I certainly know the difference between moral righteousness or unrighteousnes and civic righteousness or unrighteousness.

The term "heart" as Jesus uses, or "flesh" as Paul uses it is thoroughly corrupt before God, but is capable of civil righteousness before man.

Even Adolf Hilter practiced civil righteousness when he married Eva Braun, but we would say because he married Eva Braun he was and is a morally righteousness person.

[Roymond]

On 1/31/2023 at 4:22 PM, coheir said:

into

preposition

1.  expressing movement or action with the result that someone or something becomes enclosed or surrounded by something else

God  said we were born into sin (surrounded) NOT born sinners.

And yet Paul says we are by nature "children of wrath", and that lust is inherent in our flesh.

Then there's that pesky Psalm that says "in sin did my mother conceive me" that St. Augustine misunderstood.

[Roymond]

On 2/1/2023 at 11:45 AM, Marathoner said:

From your post, I read how our corruptibility is conflated to mean that we are corrupted by default; this was not expressed in the words of the Lord which you quoted. I recall how Gnostics taught that all flesh is inherently evil (and thus corrupt), and this was the framework of their abominable teaching that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh. How could He, when flesh is born corrupted and thus, inherently evil?

This teaching survived in the errors of Augustine, which was passed down to this very day. The Lord did not say, "man is born with a corrupted heart." The Lord did say that from the heart, those things which defile a man spring forth. No one is arguing that all men have sinned, for that is a trustworthy statement. However, at no time does scripture teach us that all men are born with a corrupted heart.

We are corruptible, and there's a notable difference between the two. If we are born with a corrupted heart, and this corruption was inherited from Adam, then the words of the Lord to the prophet Ezekiel are void. That means we are punished for the sin of Adam. That doctrine is not in keeping with the testimony of scripture, for we are not punished for the sin of Adam. We are punished for our own sin instead. This is shown to be true by the resurrection of the dead for judgment. 

The dead are judged according to their works, not the works of Adam. We see darkly and know only in part, that estate in this flesh which expresses our corruptibility. 

Okay, but what of the assertion that the wicked go astray from the womb?  and sin from the moment they're born?  "The wicked" is everyone, and "go astray from the moment they're born" is pretty blunt.

Older translations will say "the wicked are estranged from the womb", which in more modern terms could read "the wicked are aliens from the womb", meaning alienated from God -- which is where Paul gets his view given in Colossians; he uses the same Greek verb the translators of the Septuagint did.

Interestingly, Eastern theology doesn't worry about distinguishing between "corruptible" and "incorruptible", they just accept what Paul and the Psalmist say, that we are born as aliens to God.  I think Augustine didn't just get 'original sin' wrong (though he is actually misunderstood on this matter), he skewed the discussion away from Paul's concept that can be put as that we are born into the Enemy's camp and are totally apart from God.  They would say we are "infected" with sin, using the definition of sin as missing the mark, falling short, not being righteous, not so much actions contrary to commands as having the "arrow" of our hearts aimed somewhere other than God's "bullseye".  We are born in death, and death is at root estrangement from God, and as estranged beings from birth it really doesn't matter whether we call the condition "corruptible" or "corrupted" because the reality either way is that we are born -- to steal a word from C. S. Lewis (who stole it from one of the church Fathers) -- "twisted" or "bent", and what we need is to be "straightened".

 

[Roymond]

On 2/2/2023 at 2:56 PM, Dead Orthodoxy said:

The term "heart" as Jesus uses, or "flesh" as Paul uses it is thoroughly corrupt before God, but is capable of civil righteousness before man.

 

I can't remember which one, but one of the church Fathers noted in connection with the idea of the image of God in us that we cannot be totally corrupt because if we were totally corrupt there would be nothing for Jesus to redeem.  It may seem like semantics, but I think there's a distinction to be made between "totally corrupt" and "thoroughly corrupt", where "totally" would mean that there is nothing in us but corruption, while "thoroughly" would allow that there is still 'good' in us but it is also fouled by the corruption.

So in that sense I'll agree we are "thoroughly corrupt".

[Dead Orthodoxy]

1 hour ago, coheir said:

Then there's that pesky Psalm that says "in sin did my mother conceive me" that St. Augustine misunderstood.

How did St. Augustine misunderstand Ps. 51?  I believe Augustine was spot on.  Elaborate and show me the error of my way.

[Dead Orthodoxy]

32 minutes ago, coheir said:

did not say you were in error.  I stated what I believe. we just see things different.

8 hours ago, coheir said:

The environment they grow up in is how sin is introduced to them.

Sin is an external influence?   Contrast that with what Jesus said in Mark 7,  "It is not what goes into man that defiles him, but what comes out of the heart."

Jesus seems to indicate sin is of an internal nature which influences.

[farouk]

The record of Scripture is that we are 'dead in trespasses and sins' (Ephesians 2). Hence the need for the new birth (John 3).

Romans 3.23: 'All have sinned , and come short of the glory of God'. We sin because we are sinners by nature and by choice; we do not happen to become sinners because we supposedly happen to sin.

[Marathoner]

11 hours ago, Roymond said:

Okay, but what of the assertion that the wicked go astray from the womb?  and sin from the moment they're born?  "The wicked" is everyone, and "go astray from the moment they're born" is pretty blunt.

Older translations will say "the wicked are estranged from the womb", which in more modern terms could read "the wicked are aliens from the womb", meaning alienated from God -- which is where Paul gets his view given in Colossians; he uses the same Greek verb the translators of the Septuagint did.

Interestingly, Eastern theology doesn't worry about distinguishing between "corruptible" and "incorruptible", they just accept what Paul and the Psalmist say, that we are born as aliens to God.  I think Augustine didn't just get 'original sin' wrong (though he is actually misunderstood on this matter), he skewed the discussion away from Paul's concept that can be put as that we are born into the Enemy's camp and are totally apart from God.  They would say we are "infected" with sin, using the definition of sin as missing the mark, falling short, not being righteous, not so much actions contrary to commands as having the "arrow" of our hearts aimed somewhere other than God's "bullseye".  We are born in death, and death is at root estrangement from God, and as estranged beings from birth it really doesn't matter whether we call the condition "corruptible" or "corrupted" because the reality either way is that we are born -- to steal a word from C. S. Lewis (who stole it from one of the church Fathers) -- "twisted" or "bent", and what we need is to be "straightened".

 

I'm not arguing an issue of semantics, my friend. Those aren't fruitful and a waste of time. That's why I left a certain disputation in this topic, seeing as how words were being put into my keyboard (in a manner of speaking), ascribing motives and identity which are superfluous and laden with strife.

I'll have no part in that. 

You'll note that point which I made --- we are not punished for the sins of another --- and that, until we are in a certain place where we comprehend good and evil (the Lord knows), we are not assigned blame.

I did indeed labor to emphasize the difference between perfection and blamelessness, and that difference is profound. Only the Son of Man is perfect, but we are not at any time. No, not even from the day we are born. I referred to scripture to demonstrate my point, so I wasn't making baseless assertions.

Is it too hard for some to grasp? We do indeed commit error and the Almighty chooses to extend mercy toward whomever He pleases, sending His only begotten Son for our sake because He loves us. As we read in the scriptures --- particularly the New Testament --- the recipients of grace are held to be blameless in Jesus Christ.

Blameless. Forgiven. Justified, by the decree of God.

We did nothing to deserve this, and some of us never knew to ask the Lord for forgiveness. We were ignorant in our bondage to sin and as you say, aliens to God. Why did the Lord choose to have mercy upon man?

Because He loves us.

If anyone wishes to accuse a newborn of sin, let them do so. I say that a newborn, being in bondage to sin, will serve sin when they grasp the knowledge of good and evil. Thus, all men have sinned. We all have and if we deny this, then we are liars.

As you can see, I'm not disputing our estate in this flesh as the scriptures testify. I've argued that we are not punished for the sin of Adam, that God who is merciful holds children blameless, and that dogma blinds man to what is good and worthwhile: namely, mercy. We see examples of how dogma can turn men into whitewashed tombs in the Gospels.