# Do infants commit actual sins?



## SRoper

I was reading Augustine's _Anti-Pelagian Writings_ and in Book 1 of "Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants" he argues that infants don't commit actual sins. It is actually a big part of his argument for original sin. He argues that infants are guilty of original sin and for this reason are baptized. In order to make his argument, he has to remove the possibility that infants are baptized for the actual sins they commit.

What should we think about infants? Do they commit actual sins? When WLC 194 says "we and all others are guilty of original and actual sin" does it include infants?


----------



## JOwen

Yes. Anger, dis-contentedness, selfishness. Usually around feeding time.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

An old TE friend of mine and I spoke about the three words transgressions, sin, and iniquity just the other day. They each mean something different in the Hebrew language he said. Sin was a missing the mark like when one shoots an arrow and doesn't hit the bullseye. That was what he relayed to me.


----------



## Miss Marple

At least not before they are born.

Romans: "11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), "


----------



## CharlieJ

I don't think one can make much of a case for actual sin being committed by infants. Sin can be committed only by a rational creature, and children come into rationality only gradually. The baptism of infants, though they lack actual sin, was a major argument of Augustine's for original sin.


----------



## sevenzedek

Miss Marple said:


> At least not before they are born.
> 
> Romans: "11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), "



Could the _good or evil_ be in reference to works outside the womb that could be seen as procuring any interest in salvation or lack thereof? This verse doesn't seem to say anything about their spiritual condition inside the womb. But Romans 5:12 does,



> Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that *all have sinned*



*ALL* have sinned (in Adam).

Does this verse mean that original _is_ sin? In other words, is proclivity to sin seen as actual sin in God's eyes? If so, then it would seem wrong to separate original sin and "actual" sins; for original sin would then be actual sin. For infants there is no difference between sins original and actual. Do all children need Christ equally?


----------



## Pergamum

Psalm 58.3: _The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. _

Isaiah 48.8: _Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb._


----------



## KMK

> WSC Q 14 What is sin?
> A. Sin is any *want of conformity* unto, or transgression of, the law of God.



Sin is more than just transgression. Even if it could be said that infants, not being rational, cannot transgress the law, it cannot be denied that they lack conformity unto the law.


----------



## Andres

My son certainly commits sin. I see him lash out in anger when he doesn't get his way. I've seen him test his mother and I when we tell him no. I've seen him do the same thing that just caused him to get a swat, even when he knows he isn't supposed to do it. I don't know how we are defining infant here, but he's actively rebelled in things (doing things he knows he shouldn't) since he was as young as 7 months old and maybe even younger.


----------



## Scott1

> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Q. 24. What is sin?
> 
> A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.[92]



I don't think sin is based on our evaluation of (outward) cognitive ability, it is based on the transgression itself.
Accordingly, do infants disobey the law outwardly or inwardly, ever?
Isn't the description of the stage in life, "the terrible twos," the very epitome of self centered (rather than love God or neighbor), action?

And isn't sin by both ignorance or intent to rebel?


----------



## sevenzedek

I fear what would happen to my wife and I if our six week old son had the strength and agility of an eighteenth year old man. Sounds like a sci-fi flick. Man, that would be terrible.


----------



## Peairtach

> Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.(Rom 5:14,ESV)



Augustine's argument may relate to Romans 5:14. The argument was, or is, that even (very young?) infants died between the time of Adam and Moses. Since they had no actual transgression, why did they die? Because they had sinned and fallen in Adam.


----------



## BobVigneault

I agree with Pastor Ken, it's really the wrong question and a moot point. The question should be, is the fallenness of man demonstrated in the behavior of an infant? The answer is yes and we easily see our anger, discontent, lust and selfishness in their seed forms. At the same time the other question we must ask is, is our need for a savior demonstrated in the behavior of an infant? Again the answer is a resounding YES.


----------



## CharlieJ

A few things:

The "terrible twos" isn't infancy. The word "infant" comes from the Latin _infans_, which is literally in + fans, (not + speaking). So, my comments are being restricted to a narrow window that generally disappears within the first 2 years of life. 

Sin is connected to rationality because sin must be against law, either natural or positive. Natural law is directed to reason. That is why wolves and parakeets don't sin, though they might do things that negatively affect others. Following instinct, automatic reflexes, and natural responses is not culpable. 

Looking at infant behaviors, such as crying, as sinful is importing adult standards of behavior back into children. Many of these behaviors are inborn reflexes, merely stimulus-response mechanisms. For example, many child development psychologists see the earliest "fussy" behavior as a way that infants develop attachment and build trust. For example: http://www.childcarequarterly.com/pdf/fall10_babies.pdf

Also, discipline at very early ages can be tricky, since babies aren't actually born with cause-and-effect reasoning skills. They literally may not make the connection between "no" and a negative evaluation of their actions. I'm not saying this for 4-year-olds, but quite probably for 12-month-olds, and it's even possible that some of the "terrible twos" may be linked to this phenomenon. 

To sum up:

1) In the Pelagian controversy, despite all the disagreements, all sides agreed that infants do not commit actual sins.
2) The Old Testament sacrificial system points to a distinction between an always-present sinful propensity and discrete transgressions.
3) The NT commands to confess sin do the same. 
4) Psalm 58:3 seems to support the distinction, since the example of "going astray from the womb" (original sin) is "speaking lies" (actual sin of a post-infant person). 
5) Infant behavior must be interpreted within an age-appropriate biological and psychological framework, not by drawing analogies to adult behavior.


----------



## Marrow Man

BobVigneault said:


> I agree with Pastor Ken, it's really the wrong question and a moot point. The question should be, is the fallenness of man demonstrated in the behavior of an infant? The answer is yes and we easily see our anger, discontent, lust and selfishness in their seed forms. At the same time the other question we must ask is, is our need for a savior demonstrated in the behavior of an infant? Again the answer is a resounding YES.



That is absolutely the point. We tend to excuse infants, in part because they are not physically capable of doing what an adult can. That is how we look at sin (in terms of externals), when God looks to the heart. They are sinners in need of a Savior, just like any of us.

One of the greatest parts of child rearing, which The Missus and I have had to learn, is that when Gracie sins (e.g., disobeying us), that is a moment not to ignore or excuse the sin, but to teach her that it is sin, why it is wrong, how it offends God, etc. She is barely 3, but she gets it. She comes to us and says that she is sorry (limited vocabulary, but we'll get there), and we tell her how we forgive her and that God will forgive her when she asks Him. It is a wonderful opportunity to teach her about God's grace and our need of it. At night, we teach her to pray by first telling God what she is thankful for, and then what she is sorry for. None of those things would really happen if we bought into the modern non-biblical notion that children are "innocent" and not really "vipers in diapers."


----------



## Bill The Baptist

As Voddie Baucham once said, the reason God makes children small is so they won't kill their parents in their sleep.


----------



## Bob Carlberg

This is a doctrinal issue which has caused me much prayer, thought, and concern. My son was born prematurely in an emergency c-section. He weighed 2lbs, 13oz. when born. I almost lost him and my wife at birth. Her liver completely shut down and she was in seizure. I was on my knees in prayer asking God to spare both of them. In His wisdom he saw fit to spare both of them. I was a youth pastor at the time and this raised the question in my mind, "what if my son had perished?" would I, as David said, have seen my son again in heaven? How do I answer a youth who asks me where do babies go? I spoke to my pastor concerning this and he related to me that he believed that children, up until the age of accountability, go to heaven. So that begged the question, "what is the age of accountability?" Biblical study revealed that there really is no definitive age nor is the term or concept even taught in scripture. It is rather a loophole man has created to back up the nice thought that children are innocent until they understand the concept of sin and can understand the gospel plan of salvation. This creates more problems doctrinally than it solves. If we take the literal interpretation of Ps. 58:3 and truly believe that God is a just God and cannot look upon sin, nor will there be any sinners in heaven, then we must conclude that all children must go to hell as they have not accepted Christ as Savior by faith which is the only way for sinful man to enter God's presence. This did not seem consistent with Christ's teaching's nor with the character of God. 

I began to play with all kinds of theories. I stepped down as Youth pastor to study this and spend critical time with my family. Please understand I still prayerfully seek wisdom in this matter and my views are still subject to His leading. Please do not brand me as a heretic and burn me at the stake as I seek truth to affirm my beliefs. My first countered theory was, if both parents are Christians, then the child is conceived in a forgiven state and remains so until they reach an age of personal understanding. This has some support from a historical view in western Christianity but it did not seem to answer all questions. What if a person is born with diminished capacity? Do they never reach an age of understanding? What if one parent is unsaved or reprobate, etc. More complexities arise. What is f person of diminished capacity kills someone? Will they still be in heaven?

Since this had some historical precedent within the Anglican and Roman Catholic belief system I began to trace it back. Wouldn't you know, I arrived at the conclusion that before the highly esteemed Augustine, this was not much of an issue. Prior to affirming the "Doctrine" of "Original Sin" the actions of children were considered to be incumbent upon the parent. If a child misbehaved, the parent was held responsible for the child's actions. Children were considered innocent and physical death and hard labor were the only consequences passed upon them. When the western Church embraced Augustine's view of Original sin, it also embraced the idea that all children were damned from conception. As such, the Church embraced infant baptism as a way to nullify the effects of sin on infants born to Christian parents. Unfortunately, this did not prevent the children from committing terrible acts of sin such as tantrums and crying, keeping parent awake when told to be quiet and go to sleep, etc. (there was certainly a lot of debate about this at the time and many other nuances and flavors to original sin and concupiscence but this is just a summary view of the net result)

Within the Roman Catholic Church Augustine's views on Original Sin were very attractive. If sin was seminal (passed to woman through the man's sperm from the time of Adam) then this meant that all we had to do was say that Mary had lived a sinless life and had conceived through divine insemination (Joseph had not yet known her) and then Christ could be born without sin. All others were born sinful from the time of conception and dependent upon the Roman Catholic Church for baptism, confession and absolution to achieve salvation. This upped the Church leaders power, control and coffers. Pelagius disputed this idea as did all of Eastern Christianity. They were labeled Haretics and to this day, "Original Sin" is one of the primary schisms between Eastern and Western Orthodoxy. The early Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.) were all descendants of the western belief system so Original sin was carried into mainstream Protestant belief systems. Infant baptism was common until the Anabaptist's arrived on the scene. The Anabaptist's were the liberals of the day. They espoused a new form of Protestantism which had little need for an organized church and its leadership and power structure. They also rejected infant baptism. They began "re-baptizing". They believed that only a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ had the power of salvation. Infant Baptism had no salvific value. Instead, they adopted an "age of accountability" to say that all children went to heaven until old enough to hear and understand the gospel and make a choice.

This was heretical to both Catholic and Protestant churches of the day. They began to persecute the Ana baptists and there were many martyrs. Ana baptists seemed to throw out all the long established traditions of the established Church. They even began to believe in things like healing and miracles. (a return to the first Church as found in Acts)

The theological reasons for separation from the formalized Anglican and Roman Catholic religions was summarized in the Schleitheim Confession in 1529 by Micheal Sattler.

It is shortly hereafter that the Protestant church began to really assess its views on some of these issues. The Puritan movement, like the Anabaptist movement, began to separate from the established Church. They espoused a life of faith and piety apart from the dictates of the established Anglican and Catholic church. Edwards, Whitefield and Wesley stirred the pot.

So how does this play out? Well, you have to decide for yourself. To what extent did Adam's sin effect mankind and how. Was sin actually carnal knowledge as espoused by some? Is it possible for sin to technically and physically become a component of the sperm and genetically pass from generation to generation through the act of sexual intercourse? Are we truly damned from before birth. If not, to what extent did a sin nature effect mankind? Is there a difference between concupiscence and sin? These are matters you will have to settle for yourself as I have tried to do.

I looked to God, prayers and pre-church beliefs for understanding. The Jewish culture, looked not on sin as a default state of man but rather on forgiveness. The Jewish culture was based on sacrifice, faith and effort to live righteously rather than focusing on sin. 

God, in his Sovereignty knows what choices each individual will make. As such, he knew that some would be evil even from the womb, but he also knew that some would have the faith of Abraham and Noah. In this light, Ps. 58-3 and Is. 48-8 are not in contradiction with Romans 11. 

Was the inheritance of Adams sin merely physical death or also spiritual death. If it was spiritual death then there is no fellowship of God with man until God actively seeks out each man he wishes to fellowship with just as he sought out Adam in the Garden.
This is one view and if it is to be believed then the Calvinistic view is of merit. It is correct in terms of Western belief systems

If the inheritance of Adams sin was merely physical death then the Armenian viewpoint is likely one of merit. In this view Adams fall brought physical death and with it an understanding of what sin is and it's effect on man. Man has a free will to choose between following God and walking in faith with God, or turning his back on God and embracing sin. Just as Adam and Eve did in the Garden. God in no way turned his back on them but rather loved them in spite of their actions and forgave and clothed them through the shedding of blood. 

If you ask a person of Orthodox tradition they would say no. But it is important to teach our children the difference between right and wrong from the very earliest possible age.

There is also an extensive study of imputation of sin.

I think you will have to decide for yourself which view and interpretation is right according to prayer and how God leads you to interpret scriptures. Don't rely on traditional views or denominations. Study long and hard. Allow men to challenge your faith and exhort you to learning but never rely on a man's view or interpretation no mater how well written, spoken or educated it may appear. False doctrine is everywhere. Most of all don't try to square it with any previous assumptions. I am still studying to show myself approved and have some questions on this matter as do you. I have a few ideas and thoughts but none yet ready to say I have mastered it.


----------



## Scott1

Bob Carlberg said:


> It is correct in terms of Western belief systems






Bob Carlberg said:


> Was the inheritance of Adams sin merely physical death or also spiritual death. If it was spiritual death then there is no fellowship of God with man until God actively seeks out each man he wishes to fellowship with just as he sought out Adam in the Garden.
> This is one view and if it is to be believed then the Calvinistic view is of merit. It is correct in terms of Western belief systems
> 
> If the inheritance of Adams sin was merely physical death then the Armenian viewpoint is likely one of merit. In this view Adams fall brought physical death and with it an understanding of what sin is and it's effect on man. Man has a free will to choose between following God and walking in faith with God, or turning his back on God and embracing sin. Just as Adam and Eve did in the Garden. God in no way turned his back on them but rather loved them in spite of their actions and forgave and clothed them through the shedding of blood.



We might say, correct in terms of BIBLICAL belief systems. It is the confessional view, which defines this board, not merely one view among many, nor merely regional.
It is, as Spurgeon said, "Calvinism IS the gospel."


----------



## KMK

Mr. Carlberg, welcome to Puritanboard. Please fix your signature according to the board rules. You can find out how by clicking on 'Signature Requirements' below my own signature.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

CharlieJ said:


> ...Sin is connected to rationality because sin must be against law, either natural or positive. Natural law is directed to reason. That is why wolves and parakeets don't sin, though they might do things that negatively affect others. Following instinct, automatic reflexes, and natural responses is not culpable.
> 
> Looking at infant behaviors, such as crying, as sinful is importing adult standards of behavior back into children. Many of these behaviors are inborn reflexes, merely stimulus-response mechanisms. For example, many child development psychologists see the earliest "fussy" behavior as a way that infants develop attachment and build trust. For example: http://www.childcarequarterly.com/pdf/fall10_babies.pdf
> 
> Also, discipline at very early ages can be tricky, since babies aren't actually born with cause-and-effect reasoning skills. They literally may not make the connection between "no" and a negative evaluation of their actions. I'm not saying this for 4-year-olds, but quite probably for 12-month-olds, and it's even possible that some of the "terrible twos" may be linked to this phenomenon...



Have you been around many children? 

I can guarantee you that my 2 month old makes conscious decisions that exhibit reasoning skills. He has reasoned that a cry will receive a response and that if he wants to have the original purpose for the cry rectified, to continue crying until his need is met. He also has recently starting responding to other stimulation by smiling and "cooing" when he decides, reasons if you will, that the stimulation warrants it. Language skills are not a necessarily implement of reason. An "infant" certainly has "cause and affect" reasoning skills.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Bob, welcome to PB!

Just a minor correction so far. You said, "the Church embraced infant baptism as a way to nullify the effects of sin on infants born to Christian parents". I would disagree with this (perhaps it is a trace of your baptistic heritage still remaining?). The Christian church embraced infant baptism because of the continuity of the covenant of grace in the OT and NT. It had been commanded Abraham to bring his male children into the covenant – _and_ the covenant community – when they were 8 days of age; the early Jewish NT church carried this command over into the Messianic age, albeit the administration of the covenant and its tokens were changed: females were directly admitted into the covenant, Gentiles were included, and the token was a bloodless one – baptism by water.


----------



## Bob Carlberg

Scott1 said:


> We might say, correct in terms of BIBLICAL belief systems. It is the confessional view, which defines this board, not merely one view among many, nor merely regional.
> It is, as Spurgeon said, "Calvinism IS the gospel."



Spurgeon = Gospel? Hmmm... sounds like heresy to me. Last I checked the books and writings of Spurgeon were not Canonical. If you want to critique me that is fine but please base it on the inspired writings, not the writings of fallible men or confessionals. If we give the same credence to men and confessionals as we do to scripture, we will all be back under the Pope or at best, Lutherans. This is not to say they have no place in the discussion however I take offense at placing Spurgeon on the same plane as the Gospel. 

If you espouse the views of Calvin then you must take a position with him that:
1. Infants are guilty of Original Sin.
2. At least some infants God was willing to damn to Hell (Flood, Destruction of Sodom, Destruction of Ninevah etc.)
3. The only Hope for infants is that God elects them to salvation as they are neither capable of understanding or performing good or evil.
4. Any Infants which God does not Elect unto salvation are damned to hell for his purpose and glory.

Please consult Synod of Dort Article 17. which establishes a view somewhat contrary to that of Calvin.

I qoute, Dr. Schaff in reference to the Prebyterian Creed Revision,--"The chapters that relate to predestination and the loss of non-elect infants are specially under fire now, but I am in favor of dropping the reference to the pope as 'Antichrist,' and the two hundred millions of communicants in the Roman Catholic Church as 'idolators.' Such a judgment is untrue, unjust, uncharitable and unsuitable in any Confession of Faith. But that is not the special point to which attention is called. Let us keep to the text. Take the subject of 'elect' and 'non-elect' infants. You cannot escape the logical conclusion that if there are 'elect' infants, there must be 'non-elect' infants, that may be lost. Now, it is the general belief of the Presbyterian Church to-day that all infants dying in infancy are saved, while in the seventeenth century all Calvinist divines believed that some of them were lost forever. But the opponents of revision do not teach or preach this doctrine now; why, then, have it in the Confession?"


----------



## Miss Marple

" It is rather a loophole man has created to back up the nice thought that children are innocent until they understand the concept of sin and can understand the gospel plan of salvation. "

I am not quite sure it is a man created loophole. I reference that children of Israel, "sentenced" to wandering 40 years of wandering before they entered the promised land. God punished that generation only (excepting Joshua and Caleb specifically) for their unbelief. The next generation, some of whom were as old as 20, were not held accountable.

I think that is significant.


----------



## KMK

Mr. Carlberg,

Before posting again, please fix your signature as I said above.

Also, I see that you subscribe to the 2nd Helvetic, but do you agree with the following statement of both the WCF and the LBC?



> Chapter 10:III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all [other] elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.


----------



## Miss Marple

"Have you been around many children? "

Rev. Glaser, I think it is a matter of development. It is not as though one day they don't understand cause and effect, the next they do.

It is a learning process. From my observation it takes a good deal of time. Parents can help greatly with it.

I do believe my children, from conception, are sinners, due to original sin. I am not convinced they are actively and personally sinning from that point on. Obviously it starts at some point.

To cry if hungry is not sinful, if that is all you know how to do. They don't know how to look at a clock, wait for a meal time, wash hands and sit down. They learn that their cries are often answered with food. This is not sin in my opinion. Nor is it a sin, I think to fuss if in gas or other sort of pain, or if frightened, or if cold, etc. They can't talk yet. What else are they to do? It is instinctive and right, I argue, for them to cry out when in any sort of need.

I know I often cry out when in need. I don't make a squalling fuss, because I have learned language. But I still cry out.

Considering the cries of a baby as sin, at least normatively, is bad thinking in my opinion.


----------



## Branson

Miss Marple said:


> "Have you been around many children? "
> 
> Rev. Glaser, I think it is a matter of development. It is not as though one day they don't understand cause and effect, the next they do.
> 
> It is a learning process. From my observation it takes a good deal of time. Parents can help greatly with it.
> 
> I do believe my children, from conception, are sinners, due to original sin. I am not convinced they are actively and personally sinning from that point on. Obviously it starts at some point.
> 
> To cry if hungry is not sinful, if that is all you know how to do. They don't know how to look at a clock, wait for a meal time, wash hands and sit down. They learn that their cries are often answered with food. This is not sin in my opinion. Nor is it a sin, I think to fuss if in gas or other sort of pain, or if frightened, or if cold, etc. They can't talk yet. What else are they to do? It is instinctive and right, I argue, for them to cry out when in any sort of need.
> 
> I know I often cry out when in need. I don't make a squalling fuss, because I have learned language. But I still cry out.
> 
> Considering the cries of a baby as sin, at least normatively, is bad thinking in my opinion.



You took the words right out of my mouth! Except you did a better job than I would have done!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Did I say crying was sinful? Because I am pretty sure I didn't.


----------



## Bob Carlberg

For some reason I am not able to attach my signature, I am still working on it. Please forgive me.

I attempted to relay in my first post that I was relating an account of my own progression of thoughts on this matter of which I am not yet resolved. My point being that anyone who seeks knowledge should prayerfully seek it of God. I am not espousing any particular viewpoint as correct on this particular matter as I believe at this time the reconciliation of infants and children or any other person of diminished capacity to God is a mystery of Grace. All I can say is that I have thrown out the concept of "age of accountability" (A baptist originated tenant) and salvation by infant baptism (A Roman Catholic originated tenant) as extra biblical. 

If there is anything man can do to bring an infant into salvation or "covenant" relationship (circumcision, baptism, payments to church, Christian names etc.) then it would seem to be a salvation by works would it not? I would reject infant baptism as anything other than a dedication of the parents to bringing their child up in a Christian manner.

I certainly concur with 10: III that any salvation of these individuals would mean that they are Gods elect, however, I see no means by which man can confirm this election until he meets them in glory. It is therefore at best speculation without evidence that God Elects infants to salvation. 

I made it clear in my biography that this was an area in which I claimed exemption to 2nd Helvetic.


----------



## CharlieJ

Ben, your example of an infant crying or cooing for food does not demonstrate awareness of cause-and-effect or of intentionality. It could merely be instinctive stimulus-response. In fact, behavioral psychologists believe that's exactly what it is. The baby is not reasoning backward from "I want food" to "I should cry for it," even on a non-verbal level. It feels the physical sensation of hunger (or whatever) and that triggers a response. For example, you hit your thumb with a hammer and say, "Ow!" (or worse). That's stimulus-response.


----------



## py3ak

Bob Carlberg said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We might say, correct in terms of BIBLICAL belief systems. It is the confessional view, which defines this board, not merely one view among many, nor merely regional.
> It is, as Spurgeon said, "Calvinism IS the gospel."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spurgeon = Gospel? Hmmm... sounds like heresy to me. Last I checked the books and writings of Spurgeon were not Canonical. If you want to critique me that is fine but please base it on the inspired writings, not the writings of fallible men or confessionals. If we give the same credence to men and confessionals as we do to scripture, we will all be back under the Pope or at best, Lutherans. This is not to say they have no place in the discussion however I take offense at placing Spurgeon on the same plane as the Gospel.
Click to expand...


Mr. Carlberg, although Scott can speak for himself, you have misread him here. He did not say that "Spurgeon=gospel" but using the phrase "Calvinism=gospel" referenced Spurgeon's statement that Calvinism is another name for the Gospel. We generally try to avoid accusations of heresy that depend upon obvious misinterpretations.

Those who have decided to become members of the board have by that act agreed that the teachings of the word of God are faithfully summarized and stated by the Reformed confessions. Thus one of our rules states:



> 9. Remember that this is a Reformed Discussion Group.
> 
> The Puritanboard uses volunteer moderators as leadership to facilitate general order and guide the Reformed discussions that they may be exhortative as well as educational to the Reformed Christian. Many of the moderators and affiliates on Puritanboard are actively involved in Pastoring churches; the others being involved in various ministerial capacities at their respective local churches. The board and owners feel that order originates with God. Moderators follow Reformed principles and convictions, and we have openly allowed using the Reformed Confessions as a starting principle by which any moderator or member must abide. The order that the moderators help facilitate is to be aligned with their statements of faith (comprised in the Westminster Confession of Faith, The Canons of Dordt, The Belgic Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism, and Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689).


 (Emphasis added, typographic error corrected)

Therefore, while it is never out of place to ask to be instructed from the Scriptures on points that are unclear to you, it is not acceptable to set up an opposition between the word of God and the Reformed confessions, as though the confessions were not presenting the teachings of Scripture. If someone is convinced that such an opposition exists, the Internet is a large enough place that they can maintain that view without feeling it necessary to do so here. While we have a wide variety of members with a range of beliefs, advocacy for contra-confessional positions is not permitted.



> If you espouse the views of Calvin then you must take a position with him that:
> 1. Infants are guilty of Original Sin.
> 2. At least some infants God was willing to damn to Hell (Flood, Destruction of Sodom, Destruction of Ninevah etc.)
> 3. The only Hope for infants is that God elects them to salvation as they are neither capable of understanding or performing good or evil.
> 4. Any Infants which God does not Elect unto salvation are damned to hell for his purpose and glory.
> 
> Please consult Synod of Dort Article 17. which establishes a view somewhat contrary to that of Calvin.
> 
> I qoute, Dr. Schaff in reference to the Prebyterian Creed Revision,--"The chapters that relate to predestination and the loss of non-elect infants are specially under fire now, but I am in favor of dropping the reference to the pope as 'Antichrist,' and the two hundred millions of communicants in the Roman Catholic Church as 'idolators.' Such a judgment is untrue, unjust, uncharitable and unsuitable in any Confession of Faith. But that is not the special point to which attention is called. Let us keep to the text. Take the subject of 'elect' and 'non-elect' infants. You cannot escape the logical conclusion that if there are 'elect' infants, there must be 'non-elect' infants, that may be lost. Now, it is the general belief of the Presbyterian Church to-day that all infants dying in infancy are saved, while in the seventeenth century all Calvinist divines believed that some of them were lost forever. But the opponents of revision do not teach or preach this doctrine now; why, then, have it in the Confession?"



There is no opposition: in your summation of Calvin, there is no word directed to believing parents who have lost a child in infancy. And Article 17 of the first head of the Canons of the Synod of Dort expressly states that such parents should not doubt of the election of their infant child who has died - they hold out no hope for salvation of that child apart from election either. Holding that only elect infants dying in infancy are saved by itself says nothing about the identity of those elect children, nor of the extent of election among those dying in infancy. From past threads on this topic, I feel fairly certain that Dr. Schaff does not speak for all adherents of the Presbyterian Church who are also members of this Board.

As for your signature, if you have found the "Settings" link at the top of the page, and then the "Edit signature" on the left of that screen, and have filled out and saved your signature, it may be that you need to log out and log back in for it to show up.

Welcome to the Board! I hope you will find that it is possible and enjoyable to learn and profit within the confessional parameters that have been established.


----------



## sevenzedek

Bill The Baptist said:


> As Voddie Baucham once said, the reason God makes children small is so they won't kill their parents in their sleep.



Funny.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bob, you said this, "I would reject infant baptism as anything other than a dedication of the parents to bringing their child up in a Christian manner."

I think it can be proven to be much more than this. It is the same obedience to the same command given by God to Abraham, and which token of the covenant – circumcision in his day, baptism in ours – signified the inclusion of that child into the covenant, and thus into the covenant community (see Genesis 17:9-14). This did _*not*_ necessarily mean salvation, but rather the child being raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, which means of grace would be ineffectual in an unelect child, as was demonstrably the case with some then, as well as now.

Baptism of an infant is but an obedient response to a command of God. Do you deny we may consider the command to Abraham as applicable to us? Why then does Paul say, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:29)? We _are_ Abraham's seed and it _is_ applicable to us.


----------



## Miss Marple

Rev. Glaser, I understood your response to be to CharlieJ, to be arguing that infants understand cause and effect, and thus sin by continuing crying behaviors. I apologize if I misinterpreted your argument.


----------



## Bob Carlberg

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Bob, you said this, "I would reject infant baptism as anything other than a dedication of the parents to bringing their child up in a Christian manner."
> 
> I think it can be proven to be much more than this. It is the same obedience to the same command given by God to Abraham, and which token of the covenant – circumcision in his day, baptism in ours – signified the inclusion of that child into the covenant, and thus into the covenant community (see Genesis 17:9-14). This did _*not*_ necessarily mean salvation, but rather the child being raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, which means of grace would be ineffectual in an unelect child, as was demonstrably the case with some then, as well as now.
> 
> Baptism of an infant is but an obedient response to a command of God. Do you deny we may consider the command to Abraham as applicable to us? Why then does Paul say, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:29)? We _are_ Abraham's seed and it _is_ applicable to us.



Steve,

I appreciate your reply and your manner. This is good stuff. This is exactly what I am trying to understand in Reformed theology. As best I can tell historically, Baptism was practiced post confessional and with understanding individuals. It was both symbolic and regenerative, not in the sense that it forgave sins, but rather that it was the beginning of new life in Christ. This was certainly the case with the Ethiopian eunuch, who first confessed Christ, and then was baptized of water. There is no record of him being previously baptized.

Certainly we see the Holy Spirit descend upon Christ at Baptism. Christ was not subject to Original Sin so this was certainly not done to cleanse him of Original Sin? John the baptist was certainly baptizing adults who repented of sin, confessing their faith in the work of the coming Messiah. Perhaps he also baptized the children of these believers but this is not clear.

What is clear historically is that infant baptism certainly pre-dates the Christian church and was practiced by the Babylonians as a washing of sins and the only means by which one could approach god attaining salvation by works. It was symbolic of the cleansing of Noahs flood purging the earth and new life emerging. (Ironically this is the very argument made by Calvin wherein he supposes that some infants perished in the flood thereby some must have sinned) This infant baptism had to be performed by a Babylonian Priest and was done by means of sprinkling and a blessing while drawing the letter "T" on the forehead.

The earliest Church records I have found specifically regarding infant baptism is in regards to Tertullian around 110 AD. Tertullian espouses baptism as a means of forgiveness of sins committed before confession to salvation and as such actually makes the argument that baptism should be delayed, believing that if it was done too soon, a weak or young Christian might fall into sin and lose his salvation. This is certainly not a Reformed view. It in many ways is in my opinion heretical. 

Origen claims that the doctrine of infant baptism was passed to down by the apostles. He is the first true advocate of infant baptism. However, Origen was deeply influenced by pagan and Hellenistic thought and integrated many of them into his system of beliefs which he regarded necessary for the expansion of the christian faith. He would later be denounced by the Church and held such views as free will of man to choose good, attainment of salvation through piety etc. which would hardly be deemed Calvinistic in thought. His mingling of Christian, Jewish, Pagan, Hellenistic and Gnostic views and beliefs had a long lasting effect upon the Christian churches development of an established system of theology, much of it extra-biblical. 

John Chrysostom arrived on the scene by 387 AD and his following declaration clearly shows how far astray the formal church had strayed by then: "No one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed Head" (The Priesthood 3:5-6). 

This statement is a clear indication that the church leaders were using the sacrament of Baptism as a means of extortion for power. This thought pattern urged parents to submit their children to the priest for baptism as soon as possible some as early as 3 days old. Cyprian is one who argued for this sense of urgency and he certainly shared in the quest for church power. One need only read his responses to Fidus to see he encourages early baptism but curiously deems infants free of any sin of their own. This decree becomes the very basis for Augustine's formalization of "Original Sin".

I say this all Steve, to say I do not see a continuum between the token of establishing a covenant relationship based on the previous token of circumcision and executed on the 3rd day, and the practice of infant baptism. I am interested in information which better establishes this link both from a biblical perspective and historically. Cyprian clearly exhorts baptism as early as possible to allay the fears of parents about the spiritual destiny of their children amidst an environment of persecution and martyrdom. 

Do you believe that baptism is necessary to salvation? Do you believe that the remission of sin comes from baptism by water, or by the shedding of Christ's blood? What do you believe the purpose of infant baptism is?


----------



## chuckd

Bob Carlberg said:


> I am interested in information which better establishes this link both from a biblical perspective and historically.



WCF Ch. 7, 27, & 28
A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism
John Calvin: Infant Baptism
Infant Baptism, Ligonier.org


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Bob,
Maybe I missed something but you didn't seem to reply to Steve's line of thought. In order to have a conversation that is beneficial for both sides it works better if you don't rabbit trail away from the line of thinking that may help you understand a person better and what they are trying to help you with. He was specifically answering one of your conclusions and trying to help you flush it out. I think it would be beneficial if you asked questions more along his line of thought. He is trying to help you understand the Reformed position that you seem to be trying to understand. Sure the Church may have been trying to develop and understand the doctrine of Baptism from an early age. Doctrinal precision and understanding has developed through the Church as it had to deal with variant understandings and heresies. The Counsels are proof of this. The doctrine of the Trinity is proof of this. If you would and could, I think it would be better if you asked questions more along the line of Steve's thoughts before you start off with various references to data that really doesn't address Steve's specific train of thought. Am I making sense?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello again, Bob! I appreciate the immense research you have done in this undertaking of yours. Nonetheless, when you say, “The earliest Church records I have found . . .” and then proceed to Tertullian, you have skipped the record of Acts. The first NT church was Jewish, and headquartered in Jerusalem.

You end your post with, “I say this all Steve, to say I do not see a continuum between the token of establishing a covenant relationship based on the previous token of circumcision and executed on the 3rd day, and the practice of infant baptism. I am interested in information which better establishes this link both from a biblical perspective and historically.”

Slight correction: the token of the covenant was to be given on the 8[SUP]th[/SUP] day (Gen 17:12).

The earliest church records we have are in Acts. Yet you skip ahead to Tertullian (160-225) and Cyprian (200-258). The church existed even in the Old Testament times, being the faithful remnant in that period. Bob, do you acknowledge the covenant of grace as overarching both the old and the new dispensations, that is, the Abrahamic Covenant is the root of the New Covenant, and the NC is the fulfilment of the Abrahamic? For the promise given to Abraham of a seed that should bless all the earth was realized in _the_ Seed, Jesus Christ, and then in us who are united to the Seed as His own body.

The overarching nature of the CoG is on this wise: it runs plainly though both the Old and the New, that God's people are one, His covenant with them is one, faith in the Redeemer coming / and then come is one, His salvation is one, His promise is one, albeit constantly being unfolded / expanded throughout redemptive history. The Old and New Testaments (Covenants) are also one unity, although reflecting different administrations. We do not posit a disunity between the Old and New Testament Scripture.

We seem to forget or ignore the mindset of the Jew listening to Peter's sermon, which mindset is full of the overarching superstructure of God's dealing with His people for millennia. Given the "historical-grammatical" approach to exegesis, should not how Peter was understood by his listeners be taken into account?

The church of the New Covenant was established on the day of Pentecost through the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit on the apostles and company, and then extended to another three thousand as the Lord gathered them in through the proclamation of Christ in Peter’s sermon (Acts 2:14-41). What happened on this day is of great importance. Rather than bulk up this post (and the thread) let me just give you some links to previous posts.

The nature of the crowds in Jerusalem that day

More on who were in the crowds that day:

Deut 16:10 And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God.... 11: And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place where the LORD thy God hath chosen you to place his name there.​ 
This feast was to be a festive one, and although it was mandated all the males were to be there, the entire family, including servants, were invited in this time of rejoicing in the city of Jerusalem, and at the temple in particular. There were women and children in the milling crowds. And listening to Peter.

Some historical theology of the issue

Some historical theology of the issue #2 

Three thousand in one day? *

This is also some pertinent historical-theological information (as you are new here to PB, filling you in on some past discussions): http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/john-1-12-13-baptism-revisited-38633/

Here are some materials which, in my view, have the clearest understanding of Reformed infant baptism. They are all from the Protestant Reformed Church, which has a coherent view of infant baptism. First, the pamphlet, The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers - David J. Engelsma

Then there is the book by Herman Hanko, _We And Our Children: The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism_

And lastly, Herman Hoeksema's: _Believers And Their Seed_ (online version also available).

-------

* _Christian Baptism_, F.G. Hibbard

I hope this is helpful, Bob. I realize this is a lot, but then you are a reader and researcher, so it shouldn’t faze you.

-------

P.S. While church history is important, all our doctrine is derived from the Scripture. Even in the first two or three hundred years the churches and church "fathers" deviated from Biblical doctrine in a number of areas. One major accomplishment of the Reformation is the going back to Scripture to see what God Himself taught us. The views of "fathers" and divines must be subjected to the light of the word of God. Some may even have held the right doctrines for the wrong reasons, and it is on us to prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good.


----------



## Bob Carlberg

Randy,

I understand what you are saying and thought that was what I was doing but apparently I am not. Thank you for your patience. I am relatively new to the Reformed view of Baptism. The second link provided by Chuck was very helpful in helping me understand the basic views of "Covenant Baptism" It was not my intent to dispute the issue of covenant Baptism but rather to understand the pretext from whence it came in relation to the original posters question of "do infants commit actual sin". Calvin says we are all totally depraved from conception. There is apparently some sort of exemption however from the imputation of this sin if 1.their parents are believers 2. they receive Baptism 3. they are elect. I intended to try and understand this seeming contradiction of how God could accept one who did not 1. confess him, 2. repent of sin (either mortal or venial) assuming Original Sin is correct.

I can see an indirect link between Circumcision and Baptism as both signs of a covenant relationship but there is a lot of water to bridge in between for me. There seems to be too much pagan influence in this practice for me to accept it based on Calvin's word. He is basically relying on Origen (who also formalized the doctrine of the Trinity), Cyprian, Terullian and Iraneaus (all at some point denounced as heretical and all influenced by pagan thought)

It would be akin to me accepting the act of Confession as a Sacrament based on the connection between I John 1:9, James 5:16 and Levitical laws. Confession was certainly supported by the Councils and refined through the ages and is still to this day viewed as one of the 7 sacraments Christ gave to the Church (according to Roman Catholicism). 

Should we uphold the idea of purgatory as well? It could certainly be extracted and supported from several canonical passages and several church fathers if one chooses to interpret scripture in a manner suggestive of it. 

Why do we need to encumber ourselves with this baggage brought on by a church of years gone by? 

If I understand correctly, The reformed view of Covenant Baptism is that it is a sign of the New Covenant with Christ replacing the old sign of Circumcision under the Abrahamic Covenant. It is the believers way of keeping his side of the promise. A form of circumcision setting believers apart from the world and evil. 

That works fine for me, but begs several questions. What if a child perishes in the womb or before baptism can be administered. What if one parent is non elect or reprobate? Does covenant Baptism trump Original Sin if the child perishes before confession of Christ? I don't mean to be petty here but I believe that if something is truth, it is consistent in every detail.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

It is interesting to note that David's son with Bathsheba died on the seventh day, one day short of his circumcision, and yet David declares that he "shall go to him" implying that he will see him again in heaven. Regardless of one's view on baptism, I think it is clear that it has no effect on whether a child or anyone else will go to heaven. I am quite certain that hell is filled with people who at one time or another and by one method or another, were baptized.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Of course, any person's mark with (or lack of) the covenant sign, under any administration--OT or NT--doesn't impinge on the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit to regenerate.



On the pretty-far-removed subject of David's and Bathsheba's first son, the exact age of the child is indeterminate. Indeed, I think it unlikely that the child was born ill, or that the judgment of God fell immediately on the day of his birth. It would be a much more undeniable/unquestioned judgment that befell David if the child gave evidence of strength for a week or more. He is born in 2Sam.11:27, and presumably he was circumcised the eighth day in accordance with the Law of Moses, _unless_ (and here it is speculative) Nathan's confrontation (ch.12:1ff) took place on the child's birthday--David would then have received both messages (birth and rebuke) the same day. It is not impossible, but neither is it necessary to the narrative flow. The child's illness lasted seven days whereupon he died; the sickness could have begun on the day David was confronted; but again, it may have begun on the following day or days. The text is simply not concerned to convey that detail. We may infer that it happened soon enough to confirm the connection between the threat and the execution.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bob, I see I didn’t answer a question you had asked previously: No, I do not believe baptism is necessary to salvation. The thief on the cross went to be with the Lord without it. I can envision a bus of converts going to their baptism when the bus crashes and all die – and go to be with their Savior.

The question of infants, or babes in the womb, is also answerable. I don’t want to get into infants committing actual sins, as that has been dealt with above, though it is clear they inherit / partake of Adam’s sin by imputation. But babes in the womb? Consider this below, from another post on baptism:

---------

Let me ask a few rhetorical questions first: Can an infant “receive Him”, even though they have not the capacity to “believe”? 

Does an infant receive his or her mother? That is, receive her heart into his own?

Is regeneration *always* limited to adults, resulting in a profession of faith?

So much of this discussion hinges on what did the covenant God made with Abraham consist of? I think I have shown in some of the above posts that it entailed an unconditional promise to “...be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen 17:7). In Genesis 12:1 ff. and 15:1 ff. the LORD makes gracious promises to Abraham and his seed, and in verse 6 we read, “And he believed in the LORD, and he counted it to him for righteousness.” After that He delineated the terms of the covenant:

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

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.

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

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.

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.

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. (Genesis 17:7–14)​ 
For failure to put the token of the covenant on a male child, that one is out of the sphere of the covenant, cut off from the people. But Scripture makes it clear that failure to have the inward thing signified by the token likewise removed one from the covenant. This I have shown with a number of Scriptures in post #1.

The LORD shows through Moses it was a _spiritual_ promise given Abraham concerning his children:

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deut 30:6)​ 
A crucial matter is *when* this heart circumcision of the children was effected, and what it consisted of. We know of John the Baptist that he was sanctified / set apart in his mother’s womb, regenerated – while yet unborn – by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15). Calvin says of this,

Let us not attempt, then, to impose a law upon God to keep him from sanctifying whom he pleases, just as he sanctified this child, inasmuch as his power is not lessened. (_Institutes_, Book IV, chapter XVI, Sect. 17; Battles Edition)​ 
Slightly earlier Calvin says,

But how ([the Anabaptists] ask) are infants, unendowed with knowledge of good or evil, regenerated? We reply that God’s work, though beyond our understanding, is still not annulled. Now it is perfectly clear that those infants who are to be saved (as some are surely saved from that early age) are previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bear with them an inborn corruption from their mother’s womb, they must be cleansed of it before they can be admitted into God’s kingdom, for nothing polluted or defiled may enter there (Rev. 21:27). If they are born sinners, as both David and Paul affirm (Eph. 2:3; Ps. 51:5), either they remain unpleasing and hateful to God, or they must be justified. And what further do we seek, when the Judge himself plainly declares that entry into heavenly life opens only to men who are born anew (John 3:3)? (Ibid.)​ 
Thus John the Baptist (as noted above) and Jeremiah are exemplars of the Lord working in this manner with children. Did He not say to young Jeremiah, 

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jer 1:5)​ 
Talking of Christ, Calvin says,

Truly Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy in order that he might sanctify in himself his elect from every age without distinction. For, to wipe out the guilt of the disobedience which had been committed in our flesh, he took that very flesh that in it, for our sake, and in our stead, he might achieve perfect obedience. Thus, he was conceived of the Holy Spirit in order that, in the flesh taken, fully imbued with the holiness of the Spirit, he might impart that holiness to us. If we have in Christ the most perfect example of all the graces which God bestows upon his children, in this respect also he will be for us proof that the age of infancy is not utterly averse to sanctification. (Ibid., Sect. 18)​ 

In sum: 

1. John 1:12 and 13 say nothing of children, but speak of adults who receive Christ by faith even as Abraham did (“[they] believed in the LORD, and he counted it to [them] for righteousness” – see Genesis 15:6) , and thus being counted as Abraham’s seed (Gal 3:29), the promise concerning Abraham’s children was theirs. In other words, those in John 1:12 and 13 who received Christ, even them that believed on his name received this promise, which was equally applicable in new covenant Israel: 

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deut 30:6)​ 
This is not “baptismal regeneration” in the children’s cases, as the regeneration occurred prior to baptism, and similarly in the old dispensation with circumcision – though sometimes it occurred later in life, either in childhood or adulthood. Neither does the promise – in its essential form in the Deuteronomy 30:6 quote above – warrant the assurance that _all_ the children of believers are elect, which we have ample evidence concerning in the Scriptures. Yet we raise them as if they were, for such is our loving duty.

2. Examples: Was not Jacob separated unto God from the womb? (Gen 25:23) Was not Samson “a Nazarite unto God from the womb”? (Judges 13:5) Was not Samuel devoted to the LORD from the womb? (1 Sam 1:11, 19) Was not David (as well as his greater Son)? Psalm 22:9, 10; 139:13–16 . 

[end excerpt]
------------

I apologize if I am making this too long and drawn out! You asked, Bob, “What if a child perishes in the womb or before baptism can be administered. What if one parent is non elect or reprobate? Does covenant Baptism trump Original Sin if the child perishes before confession of Christ? I don't mean to be petty here but I believe that if something is truth, it is consistent in every detail.”

God knows when His elect die: Psalms 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD _is_ the death of his saints. This is so whether it be in the womb or in old age. His elect cannot perish, for they are His. I think we can agree that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

I would *not* say “covenant Baptism trumps Original Sin if the child perishes before confession of Christ” (for that is looking only at an outward sign and not the thing signified), but rather the Lord’s _election_ of a soul indeed trumps original sin, for “he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”, when our names were “written in the Lamb’s book of life” before ever we were born, or the world was (Eph 1:4; Rev 13:8; 21:27).

When we look into these things, it is by the very nature of them we cannot know the status of a child yet unborn, or even newly born. But we know this, that we have great hope that children of believers (or even one believer) dying so are elect. We cannot affirm or deny with regard to the children of unbelievers. In this we say that what the Lord does is in accord with His love and holiness, and we trust Him.

I hope this is helpful to you.


----------



## sevenzedek

Do infants desire their mother's milk more than God? (idolatry) Do they know to ascribe glory to God for the comforts they enjoy? (unthankful) Do they appear to enjoy the baubles of this world more than knowledge of God? (idolatry) Do they care more about their personal needs than honoring father or mother? (5th commandment broken) If they had the strength of an adult, would they kill their parents? (murder) If they had enough skill and strength, would they covet and steal what they want regardless of who owns what? (stealing, coveting) Do their needs take precedence over whatever else may be going on around them? (selfish)

If an unregenerate person's inability to glorify God and enjoy him does not excuse one from being a sinner who sins, then neither should an infant's inability to glorify God and enjoy him excuse one from being a sinner who sins. Besides, if a person is born with a sin nature, then an infant cannot help but behave from that root.

Perhaps the more precise question to ask is one regarding original sin. And I believe Romans 5:12 is sufficient enough to prove all people are born with original sin. Do infants and unborn children die? Then listen to Romans 5:12. Death spread to these because they sinned. Do infants and unborn children commit actual sins? Well, if they die, they do.

Yes.


----------



## Marrow Man

B.B. Warfield has an excellent summary of the history of the doctrine of infant salvation, the consequences of what we believe about the issue, and how this subject matter actually confirms the Reformed view of salvation (against the Roman Catholic and Arminian views), in _The Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation_. I can't find a version online, however.


----------



## Phil D.

Tim, _The Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation _is available here.


----------



## chuckd

Bob Carlberg said:


> There is apparently some sort of exemption however from the imputation of this sin if 1.their parents are believers 2. they receive Baptism 3. they are elect.



Sin is imputed to all without exception, as long as you are a descendant of Adam. There is no exemption from those of believing parents much like the Jews were not exempt due to their natural descent from Abraham. Nor is baptism effectual in the remission of sins. Only the blood of Christ accomplishes this.

The assumption is that the infant born to one or two believing parents will be brought up in the instruction of the Lord and be in the visible church from the womb. They are, then, "Christians." And why not give the sign to Christians? Your concept of repenting and confessing does not apply to those who are instructed from birth to believe upon the Lord Jesus. What would they repent from? Who would they confess other than the anointed one they've been taught?



> It would be akin to me accepting the act of Confession as a Sacrament based on the connection between I John 1:9, James 5:16 and Levitical laws. Confession was certainly supported by the Councils and refined through the ages and is still to this day viewed as one of the 7 sacraments Christ gave to the Church (according to Roman Catholicism).



There are two sacraments in the new testament: baptism and the Lord's supper.


----------



## Bob Carlberg

Steve,

Thank you for the information and the kind way in which you present it. You have the gift of edification. I will read and research each source diligently and prayerfully in my quest for truth.

Thank you for correcting my mistake regarding the 3rd day vs. the 8th day. When I was writing my thoughts were on Cyprian. Cyprian in his letter to Fidus regarding infant baptism, seems to discount the concept of Baptism as a covenant sign of circumcision as non-essential in the following manner:

_ "For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us.

5. For which reason we think that no one is to be hindered from obtaining grace by that law which was already ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision, but that absolutely every man is to be admitted to the grace of Christ, since Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks, and says, "The Lord has said to me that I should call no man common or unclean." Acts 10:28 But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted— and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.

6. And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to he hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to he observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell._

As previously mentioned I give little doctrinal credence to Cyprian but it seems he does not give any precedent credit to the circumcision argument presented by Fidus. Both however seem to espouse some salvific quality or grace, to the physical acts of the baptism of infants disagreeing only as to the timing and the symbolic values.

I recognize the early Church of Acts and as you mention the remnant and in my opinion John and those whom he baptized, however, to this point, canonical reference to baptism seems to always follow a sequence, 1. Hearing of the Word 2. Believing 3. Baptism 4. Telling others. 

You well point out that this chain of events may be cut short as was the case with the thief on the cross however it does not change order.

I am trying to keep an open mind (as much as possible having been marinated in 30 years of baptist doctrine) on this issue and seek truth. I want to know why I believe what I believe doctrinally and have it based on scriptural truth. I am loath to adopt as doctrine something which is based on scriptural suppositions such as demographics of a crowd, interpretations of parables, or prophetic parallels. They are rife with mans agendas.

I have come to the conclusion there is no better evidence of man's depravity than Church history. It reflects how man has used religion and twisted and altered truth to fit his agenda of pride, power, political gain and selfishness. From this false doctrine arises. 

Those who embrace Roman Catholicism and the Jewish faith would say without a doubt that their beliefs are scriptural as well bet yet we believe they err. And so it is from this viewpoint that I proceed, re-inventing the wheel as some might say and testing everything. As such, I hope my stubbornness can be understood and endured.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

sevenzedek,

Romans 5:12 is an interesting verse to bring out but I'm not convinced that it means only those who commit actual sins die. The whole context of Romans 5 is that it's because of Adam's 1 sin that all men are condemned already and therefore die because of that condemnation (v. 15-19). All have indeed sinned in Adam and can therefore be justly condemned at any point in their lives. The Council of Orange condemned Pelagius for denying original sin and they refer to Romans 5:12 as referring to original sin (Canon 2). 

I also think it's important not to get hyper-spiritual in this discussion. Many of the things you listed are referring to self-preservation which is lawful. If an infant did not cry out to let its parents know when it needs fed or a diaper changed or is in pain, etc. then maybe you could make the case that they were violating the 6th commandment by omission (since the 6th commandment requires self-preservation) but even that would be a stretch. Also, asking the question "Do they know to ascribe glory to God for the comforts they enjoy? (unthankful)" is begging the question. What does it mean to glorify God? It means to do whatever you are doing without committing a sin or having a sinful motive. We can't say that you did not give glory to God therefore you are sinning. It's not that we have to explicitly acknowledge that every tiny, minute act we do is to God's glory (ie. God I give you glory while brushing my teeth, God I give you glory while taking this shower, etc.). So you would have to first assume they are sinning to assume they are not glorifying God while acting in self-preservation.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Contra_Mundum said:


> Of course, any person's mark with (or lack of) the covenant sign, under any administration--OT or NT--doesn't impinge on the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit to regenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> On the pretty-far-removed subject of David's and Bathsheba's first son, the exact age of the child is indeterminate. Indeed, I think it unlikely that the child was born ill, or that the judgment of God fell immediately on the day of his birth. It would be a much more undeniable/unquestioned judgment that befell David if the child gave evidence of strength for a week or more. He is born in 2Sam.11:27, and presumably he was circumcised the eighth day in accordance with the Law of Moses, _unless_ (and here it is speculative) Nathan's confrontation (ch.12:1ff) took place on the child's birthday--David would then have received both messages (birth and rebuke) the same day. It is not impossible, but neither is it necessary to the narrative flow. The child's illness lasted seven days whereupon he died; the sickness could have begun on the day David was confronted; but again, it may have begun on the following day or days. The text is simply not concerned to convey that detail. We may infer that it happened soon enough to confirm the connection between the threat and the execution.



Rev. Buchanan

Of course I agree with your first point, and in fact that was the larger point I was attempting to make. I would, however, disagree with your assessment that the child did not die on the seventh day of its life. I believe that the infant was struck from the moment it was born and died on the seventh day, one day before he would have been circumcised, as a judgment from God. Matthew Henry would concur, "The death of the child: It died on the seventh day (v.18), when it was seven days old, and therefore not circumcised, which David might perhaps interpret as a further token of God's displeasure, that it died before it was brought under the seal of the covenant; yet he does not therefore doubt of its being happy for the benefits of the covenant do not depend upon its seals."


----------



## KaphLamedh

Bill The Baptist said:


> It is interesting to note that David's son with Bathsheba died on the seventh day, one day short of his circumcision, and yet David declares that he "shall go to him" implying that he will see him again in heaven. Regardless of one's view on baptism, I think it is clear that it has no effect on whether a child or anyone else will go to heaven. I am quite certain that hell is filled with people who at one time or another and by one method or another, were baptized.



good point


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Bill,
Thank you for that. I don't often find myself in disagreement with MH; I think he's pretty sound. And I can't fault him (or you) for the conclusion--it is textually based.

I simply think there's a better reason for noting that the child died on the seventh day, v18. I think it has to do with the fact that David's instant behavior was to attend worship, v20. In my opinion, the child died on the Sabbath; but rather than excusing himself from worship by the need to mourn, David leads the people in worship as befitted his mediatorial office.

Also, in my opinion, the 9th Psalm (v1, "To the chief musician, upon the death of the son, a Psalm of David...") is occasioned by the incident. And for any who reject such an interpretation on this account: that the Psalm isn't a lament, but rather more of a praise; may I gently suggest that you attempt to read it as coming from a man who is determined to give God glory, and to serve the saints, despite his personal grief, and the knowledge that his sin brought about this Justice. After all, I don't think the title (which I take literally) fits any better circumstance in David's life than the loss of his *unnamed* son. I think it aligns in this way with other pious attitudes in Scripture, such as Job's: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him."

Blessings,


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Contra_Mundum said:


> Bill,
> Thank you for that. I don't often find myself in disagreement with MH; I think he's pretty sound. And I can't fault him (or you) for the conclusion--it is textually based.
> 
> I simply think there's a better reason for noting that the child died on the seventh day, v18. I think it has to do with the fact that David's instant behavior was to attend worship, v20. In my opinion, the child died on the Sabbath; but rather than excusing himself from worship by the need to mourn, David leads the people in worship as befitted his mediatorial office.
> 
> Also, in my opinion, the 9th Psalm (v1, "To the chief musician, upon the death of the son, a Psalm of David...") is occasioned by the incident. And for any who reject such an interpretation on this account: that the Psalm isn't a lament, but rather more of a praise; may I gently suggest that you attempt to read it as coming from a man who is determined to give God glory, and to serve the saints, despite his personal grief, and the knowledge that his sin brought about this Justice. After all, I don't think the title (which I take literally) fits any better circumstance in David's life than the loss of his *unnamed* son. I think it aligns in this way with other pious attitudes in Scripture, such as Job's: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him."
> 
> Blessings,



Well certainly Matthew Henry is not infallible, and both of us could be wrong. I guess there is just a certain poetry to the idea that God would take his son just before he would have been admitted into the covenant community, as if God was saying that the illegitimacy of this child goes even beyond his conception, and yet even in this harsh judgment of God, David still remains confident that the judgments of the Lord are altogether just and that the Lord will not hold his offense against the child. Thank you for pointing out Psalm 9, that certainly does add light to this passage.


----------



## sevenzedek

Boosterseat_91 said:


> …Many of the things you listed are referring to self-preservation which is lawful. If an infant did not cry out to let its parents know when it needs fed or a diaper changed or is in pain, etc. then maybe you could make the case that they were violating the 6th commandment by omission (since the 6th commandment requires self-preservation) but even that would be a stretch…



Good point.


----------



## sevenzedek

Is it possible to have a sin nature and _not_ act out that sin nature apart from being regenerated?

Can an infant have a sin nature and behave perfectly at the same time? If so, then it must be possible for you and I to do the same.

Can an evil root produce good fruit? If so, then Christian virtue is possible apart from regeneration.

Can evil produce good? If so, then evil must not be evil.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

sevenzedek said:


> Is it possible to have a sin nature and _not_ act out that sin nature apart from being regenerated?
> 
> Can an infant have a sin nature and behave perfectly at the same time? If so, then it must be possible for you and I to do the same.
> 
> Can an evil root produce good fruit? If so, then Christian virtue is possible apart from regeneration.
> 
> Can evil produce good? If so, then evil must not be evil.



I agree with your implied answers here and would certainly answer no to the first question. However, I think there is another aspect that needs to be considered. Infants are obviously in a state where they cannot discern good from evil. They have no use of their rational but are driven by instinct. I think this is comparable to animals. Animals have no rational and therefore are not capable of sinning. While each individual infant may develop use of their rational at a unique time, still there is a stage where they act solely on instinct. 

This is not to say that infants have absolutely no apriori knowledge. They aren't born with a blank slate because then they wouldn't have the ability to learn. The question really is could an infant sin in its thoughts? Sin can be threefold (word, thought, deed). Certainly they can't sin in word and deed. I just wonder, without the use of rational, how could they sin in thought?


----------



## Scott1

Boosterseat_91 said:


> However, I think there is another aspect that needs to be considered. Infants are obviously in a state where they cannot discern good from evil. They have no use of their rational but are driven by instinct. I think this is comparable to animals. Animals have no rational and therefore are not capable of sinning. While each individual infant may develop use of their rational at a unique time, still there is a stage where they act solely on instinct.



How do we know they cannot discern right from wrong?
How is it that a parent sees his child is retracting wrong behavior after being confronted with it (throwing their rattle)?

I don't think you mean to say that babies have a nature in any way like that of animals. Unregenerate perhaps, but what biblical basis is there for saying babies are driven for instinct, like animals? (this is purely human imagination contrary to the Word).


----------



## Mushroom

The law of God is written upon their hearts. What arrogance to compare the beggarly understanding of the most cerebrally astute adult human with that of an infant and ascribe any more superiority to it than the difference between a gnat and a flea. Look at a grain of salt - 60 million molecules all held together by the inscrutable wisdom and power of God - then consider the whole universe that surrounds us, and try to make hay out of the minuscule differences between a zygote and a hoary-headed elder. Man, we sure try our best to differentiate our feeble selves in one way or another! But our omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God is sovereign over even the zygote, and those that are His - are His!


----------



## Loopie

This is certainly a very interesting discussion. When it comes to the issue of instinct I would have to disagree with the argument that the instinct of a child is comparable to that of an animal. I do not think there is a particular point in time in a child's life where it all of a sudden becomes 'aware' of right and wrong, or is able to think (no longer act from instinct). Humans are both emotional and rational creatures, and I do not see any evidence to suggest that children do not think or use their minds.

I think it is fairly clear that children are born with a sinful nature. I mean, if this was not the case, then as a parent I would not to have mold, guide, or discipline my child. Yet the fact remains that if I do nothing as a parent, the child will grow up selfish and self-centered. Parents must teach and instill moral values into their children. You do not have to teach children to be selfish or self-centered. 

As far as the manifestation of sin (what many consider to be actual sinning), I can say from experience that my daughter was around 1 year old when she first hit my wife and I in anger and in frustration. Of course, we put a stop to that through discipline, but that is just one example where a child does act in a sinful manner, which is a result of its sinful nature. It is true that newborn babes lack the motor skills to do much of anything (physically), but just because a sinful action cannot be explicitly seen does not mean that the newborn has not already sinned in its heart (and the Lord judges the heart).


----------



## sevenzedek

Boosterseat_91 said:


> …This is not to say that infants have absolutely no apriori knowledge. They aren't born with a blank slate because then they wouldn't have the ability to learn. The question really is could an infant sin in its thoughts? Sin can be threefold (word, thought, deed). Certainly they can't sin in word and deed. I just wonder, without the use of rational, how could they sin in thought?



Then it must be possible to have a sin nature and not act according to it. The Armenians must be onto something.


----------



## sevenzedek

sevenzedek said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> …This is not to say that infants have absolutely no apriori knowledge. They aren't born with a blank slate because then they wouldn't have the ability to learn. The question really is could an infant sin in its thoughts? Sin can be threefold (word, thought, deed). Certainly they can't sin in word and deed. I just wonder, without the use of rational, how could they sin in thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it must be possible to have a sin nature and not act according to it. The Armenians must be onto something.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry. What I said sounds confrontational and belittling. What I should have said is simply that what you say seems to open the door wide for the Armenian of prevenient grace.


----------



## Bob Carlberg

sevenzedek said:


> Is it possible to have a sin nature and _not_ act out that sin nature apart from being regenerated?
> 
> Can an infant have a sin nature and behave perfectly at the same time? If so, then it must be possible for you and I to do the same.
> 
> Can an evil root produce good fruit? If so, then Christian virtue is possible apart from regeneration.
> 
> Can evil produce good? If so, then evil must not be evil.




I have been doing some (alot) of reading the past couple days on this topic. I believe the truth is hidden by the influence of Greek philosophy upon the Western culture which we now live in. Greek philosophy defines the essence of man as the ability to reason. They felt this is what set man apart from other living beings. Since infants and the mentally incapacitated are incapable of reason, it is difficult for us to understand the concept of sin which according to Greek thought, requires the ability to reason. However, if we for a moment can shed the veil of Greek philosophy and look at it from a viewpoint of Hebrew thought we can gain great insight as to the issue of sin. I am not a Hebrew scholar so I have to rely on sources here but it seems to be universally accepted that Genesis 6:5 uses the words yetzer ha’ra (evil inclination, not demonic in nature or sinful but rather a drive for self preservation, security, personal gain) and yetzer ha’tov (good inclination, desire to please God, altruistic endeavors towards others, selflessness ). In Hebrew thought, Man was created with two distinct inclinations. It is his inclinations that drive him. They both can be channeled for good and moral cause if kept in check and balance. For instance man may use his drive for security, to provide for his family, this is a balanced endeavor using both inclinations and is proper. It is when he allows his passions to become imbalanced and his Yetzer ha'ra over powers his Yetzer ha'tov that he falls prey to immorality. Immorality or sin is the failure to obey the law. Adam did this in the garden The result of this was separation from God and physical death. Sin avoidance does not require reason, it requires self control. The reasoning man will rationalize sin and fall into it, but the self controlled man will avoid sin by doing good. This is the premise of Hebrew living, if we are doing good, following our good inclination, we cannot also be doing evil and following our evil inclination. 

The early Jewish church understood this concept well, but the Greeks had trouble with this concept. Paul specifically speaks of this in Romans 7. He attempts to explain how there is a constant battle or struggle within man between evil and good. This can end up very hard to follow if one does not understand the Hebrew concept of two inclinations coexisting within man. He further explains that Adam's sin brought sin into the world, tilting the playing field if you would, and effecting all his descendants. This did not change the way they were created in the image of God) but it did effect the physical and social environment that they would live in. 

Pertaining to children it was believed that they were born innocent but had only the yetzer ha'ra at birth. This is what David speaks of in the Psalms. He had an evil inclination (inclination towards selfishness and self preservation) even from the time of conception and was born into a sinful world from his earliest moments. This can be seen in a fetus and is commonly referred to as instinct. At this point it is not sinful, as the child has no awareness of the law or a sense of morality. It is merely self preservation. It was believed in Jewish tradition that the yetzer ha'tov did not develop until age 13. This is when a child could understand the law and had a sense of morality, the ability to determine right from wrong, balance his two internal drives and make a choice in whether to serve God or to serve his own selfish desires (fleshly lusts).

If one looks hard he can see through this where the concept of a sinful nature (later evolving into Original Sin and then Total Depravity) and the concept of an age of accountability both draw their origins.

In order to accept this explanation of a child's innocence, it requires some modification of Reformed Calvinistic thought though not a complete abandonment, namely that sin is not genetic or inherited, rather babies are born innocent of breaking the law but with an evil inclination towards self preservation which if left unchecked after they have developed a sense of morality or conscience, damns them eternally. The only salvation is repentance and faith in sacrifice. The new covenant sacrifice being Christ's death on the cross.

By this line of thought, it is theoretically "possible to have a sin nature and not act out that sin apart from being regenerated" although it is very unlikely. This goes a little deeper into understanding the true nature of Christ as the God man. How he could be "tempted even as we are" without sinning.

An infant can have a "sin nature" and behave "perfectly" as we would expect an infant to behave. Would you not cry out if someone poked you? Failure to do so would make you imperfect. As adults however we have a moral conscience.

Evil cannot produce good if it is demonic in nature, however, evil can be used to drive man's passion for good. (This is why we go to war to defend the defenseless, why we would sacrifice our lives to protect our families and our country from evil etc.) Without the presence of evil there would be no distinction of good. 

I am in no way espousing humanism here or the concept that man is basically good or can obtain salvation or anything else on his own apart from God. It is by the grace of god that we even are kept breathing. There is a great distinction to be made. I know many will disagree with this but as best as I can tell it is scriptural and is contextual although not necessarily in line with any Reformed confession, nor the confession of any other established faith to my knowledge. I am still reading more about it and may reverse course should new light be shed.


----------



## Scott1

Bob Carlberg said:


> Immorality or sin is the failure to obey the law. Adam did this in the garden The result of this was separation from God and physical death. Sin avoidance does not require reason, it requires self control. The reasoning man will rationalize sin and fall into it, but the self controlled man will avoid sin by doing good. This is the premise of Hebrew living, if we are doing good, following our good inclination, we cannot also be doing evil and following our evil inclination.



Trying to follow your logic here,
Avoiding sin requires both outward and inward obedience- that's why God must first change the nature of a human being to allow him to have a nature free from the bondage to sin BEFORE man can do "good" (and thus, not sin).

Not sure about the promise of Hebrew living, or what the Greeks thought,
but that is the biblical revelation of the topic, and the Westminster Standards summarize the doctrine of Scripture to be that.

Cf. (Scripture proofs omitted)


> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XVI
> Of Good Works
> 
> I. Good works are only such as God has commanded in His holy Word,[1] and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.[2]
> 
> II. These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith:[3] and by them believers manifest their thankfulness,[4] strengthen their assurance,[5] edify their brethren,[6] adorn the profession of the Gospel,[7] stop the mouths of the adversaries,[8] and glorify God,[9] whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto,[10] that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.[11]
> 
> III. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.[12] And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure:[13] yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.[14]
> 
> IV. They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which is possibly in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.[15]
> 
> V. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins,[16] but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants:[17] and because, as they are good, they proceed from His Spirit,[18] and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God's judgment.[19]
> 
> VI. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him;[20] not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God's sight;[21] but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.[22]
> 
> VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:[23] yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;[24] nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;[25] nor to a right end, the glory of God,[26] they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:[27] and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.[28]


----------



## sevenzedek

Bob Carlberg said:


> …I am not a Hebrew scholar so I have to rely on sources here but it seems to be universally accepted that Genesis 6:5 uses the words yetzer ha’ra (evil inclination, not demonic in nature or sinful but rather a drive for self preservation, security, personal gain) and yetzer ha’tov (good inclination, desire to please God, altruistic endeavors towards others, selflessness )…/QUOTE]
> 
> I cannot find the word "ha'tov" in Genesis 6:5 so your post does not do much to convince me. I did find the word "yetzer" in Genesis 6:5 and the TWOT roughly means "form." The _form_ of man's thoughts were evil continually.
> 
> Romans 5:12 says that an evil inclination is sin.
> 
> How is it possible to have an evil inclination that is not sinful? I think original sin IS sin. If an "evil inclination" is not sinful, then who is to say we will not have evil inclinations in heaven? But the bible teaches that we will not be able to sin in heaven.
> 
> It is impossible to have sinful inclinations and not act according to them apart from regeneration. In the same way, it is impossible to have a lemon root and bear orange fruit.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bob, a couple of thoughts here on your latest post (#60).

I do not believe “Jewish tradition” is a source of any light (I was born a Jew, by the way), except it be in line with Scripture. You go on to say,

“If one looks hard he can see through this where the concept of a sinful nature (later evolving into Original Sin and then Total Depravity) and the concept of an age of accountability both draw their origins.”​ 
Are you saying that OS and TD have their origins in Jewish tradition? I would say Total Depravity derives straight from Scripture:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one (Romans 3:10-12).​ 
(TD doesn't mean we are all as bad as we possibly can be; it means we are totally unable to please God in any respect in our fallen (i.e., unregenerate) state, as we are dead to Him in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2).)

Likewise Original Sin, this comes not from Jewish tradition, nor Roman for that matter, but from God’s word. Adam’s sin – he being the head of the human race – is imputed to his progeny; Christ's righteousness – being head of the new human race – is imputed to His seed. Romans 4 and 5 bear this out (I do not want to take the space – if not necessary – to unpack that here (fie on you pc word censors! [a little in-house humor here at PB]).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

It would probably help the discussion immensely to review this biblical teaching, as expressed by the Westminster Confession:
WCF Chapter 6:
* Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof*

6:1 Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit (Gen.3:13; 2Cor.11:3). This their sin God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory (Rom.11:32).

6:2 By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God (Gen.3:6-8; Ecc.7:29; Rom.3:23), and so became dead in sin (Gen.2:17; Eph.2:1), and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body (Gen.6:5; Jer.17:9; Rom.3:10-19; Tit.1:15).

6:3 They being the root of all mankind (Gen.1:27-28; 2:16-17; Act.17:26; Rom.5:12,15-19; 1Cor.15:21-22,45,49), the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation (Gen.5:3; Job 14:4; 15:14; Ps.51:5).

6:4 From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good (Rom.5:6; 7:18; 8:7; Col.1:21), and wholly inclined to all evil (Gen.6:5; 8:21; Rom.3:10-12), do proceed all actual transgressions (Mt.15:19; Eph.2:2-3; Jas.1:14-15).

6:5 This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated (Prv.20:9; Ecc.7:20; Rom.7:14,17-18,23; Jas.3:2; 1Jn.1:8,10); and although it be, through Christ, pardoned and mortified, yet both itself and all the motions thereof are truly and properly sin (Rom.7:5,7-8,25; Gal.5:17).

6:6 Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto (1Jn.3:4), doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner (Rom.2:15; 3:9,19); whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God (Eph.2:3), and curse of the law (Gal.3:10), and so made subject to death (Rom.6:23), with all miseries spiritual (Eph.4:18), temporal (Lam.3:39; Rom.8:20), and eternal (Mt.25:41; 2Ths.1:9).​

The doctrine of Original Sin teaches several interconnected truths. Here's the Shorter Catechism's Q&A 18:


> Question 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
> Answer. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature which is commonly called *original sin*; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.



1) ALL men are _born guilty_ of ADAM'S first sin. This is a vital truth, however much it is denied and hated, even by many professing believers. There is a great irony in the common objection, of course, but even this is only too human. See, people are HAPPY to be the beneficiaries of Christ'S obedience and innocence imputed to them without deserving it; but often the same people are FURIOUS at the very suggestion that they might be found *federally guilty* and condemned because of their first Representative's disobedience. After all, they say, "I don't deserve that! No one asked me!" He is victim of the conceit that his his destiny is subservient in the last consideration to his own will. As if there never were any slaves? Or subjects?

2) ALL men (of ordinary generation) are _born lacking original righteousness_. They have no communion with God from the start, and the intrinsic natural result of this is a dead-existence. If a child is born without a set of lungs, he will be a stillbirth. He is missing a crucial component necessary for his lively existence. A fish can be born without lungs, but it doesn't need them either. There is no intermediate condition between sacred and profane in the case of human being. So one not in fellowship with God is necessarily in a state indistinguishable from the damned.

3) ALL men (of ordinary generation) are _born with a corrupted nature_. Christ excepted (not being born of ordinary generation), all men are now indisposed from the beginning of their existence to holiness. Now this condition, even without motion _toward_ sin is truly and properly sin, because it is EVIL. But, it is fair to argue that infants can only with torturous difficulty be said, definitively, to be culpable for acts that are hardly voluntarily (willfully) rebellious. As one has wisely put it: an infant's NEEDS and WANTS are indistinguishable to himself, and pretty much to his parents or caregivers either.

So, being sinful, the slightest motion of an infant's life is sin; but regardless of how excusable it may be *he is guilty and condemned by Adam's first sin.* But it is from the sinful nature that proceed all "actual transgressions," to quote the catechism. These are the positive accumulations of a lifetime (however short) of acts that the conscience is (or will be) persuaded, infallibly, are the fruits of his own sin. All those who end up in hell have "the worm that dieth not," which M.Henry proposes is the misery of an everlastingly accusing conscience.

And, of course all the motions of the sinner in hell are also sin. Neither heaven nor hell is a place without development or the outworkings of perfection. As in heaven we will always and forever "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ;" so in hell sin is perfectly horrid, and the wicked will add sin to sin without end, and exactly justify their eternal sentence. Even to resent the justice of God upon oneself in the least degree is to impugn the dignity of the Judge.


The unanswered and unanswerable question is only this: did God elect every infant who has died or will ever die in infancy (or the womb)? This kind of scholastic curiosity leads to perverse derivatives (such as: "if yes, then why oppose abortion?"). If God's answer were "No," then he would be just. If it were "Yes," he would still be just--because the condition of the subject is no factor in election. It is not a proper or decent question. Any answer given, especially those that proceed from sentimentality, is grossly speculative.

The CHRISTIAN has been given this Word in which to HOPE: "I will be God to you, and to your children after you." At the end of the day, there is nothing else for the bereaved believer to lay his grief by than the Promises that have been granted to him, and the confidence that it is in his interest to say with Jesus, "Yet not my will, but thine be done," and "When I awake, I shall be satisfied with THY likeness." His happiness or recovery from grief can never stand firmly on having a particular answer to his prayer from God. Our comfort in prayer is in the ONE to whom we pray, in the communion we have now by PRAYER and then by sight; and not in whether we clasp that little one to us when we stand there in his presence.

And yet, for all that could remain uncertain about the outworking of God's Providence, those promise-words are not to be doubted.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks, Bruce – that’s just what the doctor ordered!


----------



## Bob Carlberg

sevenzedek said:


> Bob Carlberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> …I am not a Hebrew scholar so I have to rely on sources here but it seems to be universally accepted that Genesis 6:5 uses the words yetzer ha’ra (evil inclination, not demonic in nature or sinful but rather a drive for self preservation, security, personal gain) and yetzer ha’tov (good inclination, desire to please God, altruistic endeavors towards others, selflessness )…/QUOTE]
> 
> I cannot find the word "ha'tov" in Genesis 6:5 so your post does not do much to convince me. I did find the word "yetzer" in Genesis 6:5 and the TWOT roughly means "form." The _form_ of man's thoughts were evil continually.
> 
> Romans 5:12 says that an evil inclination is sin.
> 
> How is it possible to have an evil inclination that is not sinful? I think original sin IS sin. If an "evil inclination" is not sinful, then who is to say we will not have evil inclinations in heaven? But the bible teaches that we will not be able to sin in heaven.
> 
> It is impossible to have sinful inclinations and not act according to them apart from regeneration. In the same way, it is impossible to have a lemon root and bear orange fruit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon,
> 
> Once again I failed to post the missing piece of information. My apologies for thinking faster than I type as I am sure we all tend to do. It is in Genesis 2:7 the Bible states that "Elohiym (God) formed (vayyitzer) man". Rather than one Yod as would be usual, this word has two: vaYYitzer. The rabbis determined, from this unusual spelling, that these two Yods (Ys) signify two yetzers, or "impulses." The first yetzer is yetzer ha'ra or inclination to evil or impulse to evil as is found in Genesis 6:5 and Genesis 8:21. (What we would call Original Sin although it is not viewed as such by Jews) The second yetzer is yetzer ha'tov or good inclination. I am still researching the whole yetzer ha'tov thing for scriptural reference but as I alluded to, it is universally accepted in modern Rabbinical literature and Judaism as the second Yod referred to in the word "Vayyitzer".
> 
> 
> Last nights exploits revealed that the Yetzer ha'tov is alluded to but is more a rabbinical literature concept. Not to be entirely relied upon. I feel no more comfortable with it at this point than the views of the church fathers. I have been pointed to the Dead Sea scrolls and the Targumim for some insight by a person I know and believe knowledgeable and reliable in Judaic beliefs but is also a Christian. He tells me his studies reveal a knowledge of Original Sin within the early Jewish Christian church, the question is, was this original sin view in line with the confessions we hold or was their view something different in regards to guilt and imputation. He advised I study this for myself and make the determination of my own volition.
> 
> Steve,
> 
> He also confirmed my conclusions (by means of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the baths found at Qumran) that the early Jewish believers were not practicing infant baptism. The Jewish view of baptism prior to Christ, was that it was for ceremonial purification and required a total immersion, so much so that they would remove there clothes so that no part of the body was shielded from the water. Leviticus 15:16 says "He shall wash all his flesh in the water". They would then self immerse, (it was important that no one touch them during cleansing) in a mikveh, a pool specifically made for this purpose or a location meeting certain requirements such as the Jordan River. The water could not be drawn by hand and no part of the body was to remain dry. This would seem to eliminate the possibility of today's infant baptism by sprinkling being historically correct.
> 
> It is very difficult to believe that infants were self immersing. It is also mentioned that repentance must precede baptism for without repentance there can be no cleansing. It is conceivable that some of the early church Jewish Christians adopted the Pagan model as we have evidence of sects including non-Jewish and non Christian elements in worship. It would be akin to churches today using icons and such. There were however some Jewish Christians who continued to practice Jewish ceremonial temple rites until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD at which time they had to modify many of their practices and some of them became only symbolic as they could not be carried out without temple facilities. Imagine a couple getting married in a field today with no aisle to walk down, a symbolic aisle is created. It is possible that at this time you had Jews baptizing by means other than immersion as no mikveh was available but this would not have been by choice.
> 
> In deference to the board rules I will cease posting my views which may cause challenge to the stated confessions as it seems offensive to some and that is not my intent. I do not consider a challenge to my faith an offense but rather an opportunity. I apologize for any offense and emphasize that my efforts are not to provoke anger or cause schisms, merely to make every effort to prove my faith and know the "why" of my belief system beyond a memorized confession, written by fallible men, so that when challenged by the enemy I can present an informed and educated defense of the Gospel. We must not allow ourselves to be content in our confessions. Everyday, new findings are coming from the archaeological explorations and they can provide much insight to some of these discussions. We are implored to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. I believe this to mean take nothing for granted but strive to prove it as judgment awaits those who teach false teaching. I wish not to be an ashamed workman that says I relied on the early church fathers or Reformers, or common confessions although I believe each of these have their rightful place.
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott1

Bob Carlberg said:


> "why" of my belief system beyond a memorized confession, written by fallible men, so that when challenged by the enemy I can present an informed and educated defense of the Gospel. We must not allow ourselves to be content in our confessions. Everyday, new findings are coming from the archaeological explorations and they can provide much insight to some of these discussions. We are implored to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. I believe this to mean take nothing for granted but strive to prove it as judgment awaits those who teach false teaching. I wish not to be an ashamed workman that says I relied on the early church fathers or Reformers, or common confessions although I believe each of these have their rightful place.



Bob,
The role of the Confessions is to summarize the doctrine of Scripture on matters to which they speak. It's not a matter of being "content" with them, it's a matter of:

1) understanding their role as faithful summarizes of the doctrine of Scripture
2) second, understanding what they summarize a particular doctrine to be

It's not a matter of waiting for them to be disproved by archaeological finds, or the opinions of men, or the supposed 'logic' of men-

it is to understand what they are saying,
and to test them by Scripture interpreting Scripture only.

Any difference needs to be specifically stated, and a case made from Scripture interpreting Scripture as to the reason for any difference.

So far, you have not done that. 

You merely vaguely assert we ought not go by the Confessions because, the implication being, that summaries of doctrine are not valid, or they must, somehow contradict Scripture (or is it they contradict your opinion?).

Remember, the Confessions have been time tested, many great Divines and skeptics have gone before us in proving out the statements and/or propositions of doctrine summarized in them.

We must start with a recognition of that before all else.


----------



## py3ak

Bob Carlberg said:


> In deference to the board rules I will cease posting my views which may cause challenge to the stated confessions as it seems offensive to some and that is not my intent. I do not consider a challenge to my faith an offense but rather an opportunity. I apologize for any offense and emphasize that my efforts are not to provoke anger or cause schisms, merely to make every effort to prove my faith and know the "why" of my belief system beyond a memorized confession, written by fallible men, so that when challenged by the enemy I can present an informed and educated defense of the Gospel. We must not allow ourselves to be content in our confessions. Everyday, new findings are coming from the archaeological explorations and they can provide much insight to some of these discussions. We are implored to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. I believe this to mean take nothing for granted but strive to prove it as judgment awaits those who teach false teaching. I wish not to be an ashamed workman that says I relied on the early church fathers or Reformers, or common confessions although I believe each of these have their rightful place.



Mr. Carlberg, while certainly adherence to the Board rules is commendable, I do not think it is a matter of offense (not in the sense of feeling insulted, certainly), but a matter of principle. A careful perusal of this thread may help you understand the position we take, and why we do. When someone is asked to subscribe to a confession the intention is not that they will mindlessly conform, but that they will intelligently agree. We do not encourage anyone to let their faith stand on the documents of the church, rather than on the word of God. The presumption, when someone subscribes to a confession, is that they have read it, compared it to Scripture, and found it to be a faithful summary. Thus those who are members here, are here because they have professed that these documents accurately reflect the teaching of the word of God. Not, to allude to B.B. Warfield, that beginning with the Confession they can extract this meaning from Scripture; but that beginning with Scripture, they cannot make it come to any other conclusion than what has been confessed.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Bob Carlberg said:


> Leviticus 15:16 says "He shall wash all his flesh in the water". They would then self immerse, (it was important that no one touch them during cleansing) in a mikveh, a pool specifically made for this purpose or a location meeting certain requirements such as the Jordan River. The water could not be drawn by hand and no part of the body was to remain dry. This would seem to eliminate the possibility of today's infant baptism by sprinkling being historically correct.



This is an interesting statement. I'm simply going to comment on it in isolation from the remainder.

It begins with a Scripture text, passes into the "commandments of men (Mt.15:9), and comes to a conclusion not obviously connected to the premises laid out. Clearly, some inferences are being asked from the reader; but they are more than inferences--they are incredible leaps of logic.

It begins with a quote from the Law, which was given to Moses, and promulgated to Israel in the wilderness, a place where more often than not, other than what they carried or was miraculously provided, there was basically no water, Ex.15:22, 17:1ff, Num.20:2, 21:5, Dt.2:6,28; 8:15, "...who led you through the great and terrifying wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground *where there was no water*, who brought you water out of the flinty rock;" Neh.9:20; Ps.78:15; Is.43:20; 48:21; cf. Ps.107:4-5; Ezk.19:13; Ps.63:1; Hos.2:3.

Suffice to say that _if one's concept of the many and varied ceremonial cleansings or washings of the OT (referred to as "baptisms" in Heb.9:10) could not be performed in perfect accordance with the Law *under wilderness conditions*, I do believe the concept itself requires adjustment._

It is immaterial what some later generation _added_ to the Word of God, contra Dt.4:2 and 12:32, by laying on the people religious requirements or insisting on elaborations and exaggerations of divine ordinances. Note that our Lord himself rebuked his generation for admitting this folly, Mk.7:13. I find incredible the proposal: that the NT divine ordinance of baptism has for it's foundation exhibitions of "will-worship," Col.2:23.



And besides those criticisms, the alleged implications of the Jewish ritual-bath isn't even accurate, as it pertains to minors.
Consider the following quotation from Maimonides, _Mishna Torah_ » Sefer Kedushah » Issurei Biah, chapter 13, halacha 7


> We immerse a minor who seeks to convert based upon the guidance of the court.12 For it is an advantage for a person [to convert].13 When a pregnant woman converts and immerses herself, her child does not require immersion.14
> 
> Notes:
> 12.	Conversion, a change in status, must be brought about through a conscious decision by the convert. A minor is not considered as able to make mature decisions and is not held responsible for his conduct. Therefore he cannot make the decision to convert. Nevertheless, the Jewish court makes this decision on his behalf.
> The converted child, however, has the option of refuting the conversion when he comes of age. If he protests his conversion at that time, he is considered a gentile and need not observe the mitzvot. If, however, he accepts his conversion when he comes of age, but regrets afterwards, he is bound by his original decision.
> 13.	A person cannot act on another person's behalf unless it is considered to his benefit, but our Sages consider becoming part of the Jewish people a benefit sufficient enough to justify their actions. The Maggid Mishneh explains that although the Torah and its mitzvot compel a person to restrain his conduct, as long as he is young and has not become habituated to forbidden conduct, he will be able to accommodate himself to the Torah's guidelines.
> 14.	For the fetus is considered as part of her body and her immersion is sufficient for the fetus as well.


source: Chapter Thirteen - Texts & Writings


Observe:
1. This text uses the term "immerse" consistently for the TBL word group. It does so throughout the chapter in this translation. But at the same time, earlier halacha (see #3 for example) point to Ex.19:10 as evidence that the children of Israel were originally "baptized" (as other translators have rendered "TBL" in this excerpt), besides the necessity of their circumcision and sacrifice to be constituted Israel. Hence, the requirement, based on Num.15:15, that all converts afterward should imitate them.

I have already addressed the incongruity of treating desert baptisms as immersions, where there is neither the amounts of water necessary, nor the facilities, for performing such. 

2. This text directly addresses the matter of *minors*. Conversion is above all regarded as a matter of the will. However, the court authorizes the "TBL" of the minor, whiich would go immediately along with circumcision as directed, Lev.12:3. His "seeking" is subsumed into his parent's act. As the notation indicates, the covenant-identity can later be repudiated as a nullility; but if it is first accepted then repudiated he is treated like an apostate.

The second sentence provides the justification for imposing the "TBL" on the minor: because it is _objectively_ to his advantage.

In the third sentence the unborn child is considered to be "TBL" because his mother undergoes the rite, and he with her.

Evidently, the "TBL" was then considered valid for all subsequent generations (just as the alleged original rite of Sinai was thought to have transferred). So, in the Jewish mind, of the 12th century anyway and looking backward to the traditions, minors took such "TBL" with their converting parents.



In recognizing certain Jewish teaching on conversion, I am not conceding that the ritual-cleansing--by any form it takes--was actually required by the LAW for reception into the covenant. The Law stipulated circumcision alone as a ritual, followed by corporate conformity to the ceremonies of all the people; and not a retroactive recapitulation of the individual Israelite experience at Sinai.

If pressed to accept that Israelite converts were, in fact, baptized-in-accordance-with the Law, I would still be bound to reject the notion that such baptism required any greater extravagance than would have been minimally acceptable under essentially waterless conditions wandering in the wilderness, thus *ruling out* immersion as a requirement.

And lastly, the ancient Jewish authorities (at least of the 12th century) received entire families as converts, and 'baptized' them male and female, including their minor children. This undermines a major assertion from the original quote, on which is based further inferences.


----------



## TylerRay

I haven't been following this thread, but I just wanted to throw out there that it was actually Augustine that led me to believe that infants _do_ commit actual sins!

From "Confessions" VII. xi.:


> Who brings to remembrance the sins of my infancy? For in thy sight there is none free from sin, not even the infant who has lived but a day upon this earth. Who brings this to my remembrance? Does not each little one, in whom I now observe what I no longer remember of myself? In what ways, in that time, did I sin? Was it that I cried for the breast? If I should now so cry -- not indeed for the breast, but for food suitable to my condition -- I should be most justly laughed at and rebuked. What I did then deserved rebuke but, since I could not understand those who rebuked me, neither custom nor common sense permitted me to be rebuked. As we grow we root out and cast away from us such childish habits. Yet I have not seen anyone who is wise who cast away the good when trying to purge the bad. Nor was it good, even in that time, to strive to get by crying what, if it had been given me, would have been hurtful; or to be bitterly indignant at those who, because they were older -- not slaves, either, but free -- and wiser than I, would not indulge my capricious desires. Was it a good thing for me to try, by struggling as hard as I could, to harm them for not obeying me, even when it would have done me harm to have been obeyed? Thus, the infant's innocence lies in the weakness of his body and not in the infant mind. I have myself observed a baby to be jealous, though it could not speak; it was livid as it watched another infant at the breast.
> Who is ignorant of this? Mothers and nurses tell us that they cure these things by I know not what remedies. But is this innocence, when the fountain of milk is flowing fresh and abundant, that another who needs it should not be allowed to share it, even though he requires such nourishment to sustain his life? Yet we look leniently on such things, not because they are not faults, or even small faults, but because they will vanish as the years pass. For, although we allow for such things in an infant, the same things could not be tolerated patiently in an adult.


----------



## JoannaV

I think we should be careful when trying to judge exactly what action on a particular infant's part is sinful... It is God who judges not man, and though we may discuss the theology of it all when it comes to judgements on individual cases there are some situations in which we need to use discernment and others that we need not judge at all. In Scripture there is the image of the mother comforting her child through nursing. This is all a mother need know, she need not figure out what the exact motivation behind her baby's cries are.


----------



## Scott1

JoannaV said:


> I think we should be careful when trying to judge exactly what action on a particular infant's part is sinful... It is God who judges not man, and though we may discuss the theology of it all when it comes to judgements on individual cases there are some situations in which we need to use discernment and others that we need not judge at all. In Scripture there is the image of the mother comforting her child through nursing. This is all a mother need know, she need not figure out what the exact motivation behind her baby's cries are.



I understand what you are saying,
especially as it might relate to something like crying.

But also, it becomes early very apparent- a child defies his parent. He takes something, mother takes it away, the child defies and throws a tantrum. It's willful.

I don't think from a biblical standpoint it is so much sin from the standpoint of cognitive ability, but even then, I think the child knows a lot more than we acknowledge. But that is more, anecdotal and more subjective.

We know that all have sinned (Romans 3:23) and that death passed to all men by Adam, and that they do (actually) sin Romans 5:12. There is no age qualification on that.

Cognitive ability or ability to articulate are really separate issues.

I don't see substantial reason evidence Scripturally to believe that those are the basis for accountability for sin. That's why I appreciate the Westminster summary of the doctrine of Scripture on this point.

Notice how it comes at the issue not from the standpoint of infants being a special case based on ability to sin, but on God's ability to effectually call who He will:



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter X
> Of Effectual Calling
> 
> I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]
> 
> II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]
> 
> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
> 
> IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:[17] much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.[18] And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.[19]



It acknowledges, within the power of God's eternal decrees, that He may save who He pleases- any age, any stage and from any nation. Specifically, we have reason to believe it includes infants. Believing parents have special reason to believe in the salvation of their child.

But in the end, a believing parent has reason to hope, not demand.
And we do not know how many, or how few elect elect infants our God will redeem. 
but we do have reason to believe it will be some.


----------



## sevenzedek

JoannaV said:


> I think we should be careful when trying to judge exactly what action on a particular infant's part is sinful... It is God who judges not man, and though we may discuss the theology of it all when it comes to judgements on individual cases there are some situations in which we need to use discernment and others that we need not judge at all. In Scripture there is the image of the mother comforting her child through nursing. This is all a mother need know, she need not figure out what the exact motivation behind her baby's cries are.



Since we have a seven week old in the house, I can particularly appreciate your comment. This is something of which my wife and I constantly try to remind ourselves. We both believe he is sinful already, but we do not yet have the wisdom to discern it.


----------



## Miss Marple

"But also, it becomes early very apparent- a child defies his parent. He takes something, mother takes it away, the child defies and throws a tantrum. It's willful."

I would take the position that exercising the will is not in and of itself sin.

If I am hungry, I go make myself a sandwich. That is exercising my will, for a reasonably felt true need.

The baby's need for milk is far greater than my need for any sandwich; of this I am certain.

Yet he can't feed himself. So, he makes his need known the only way he knows how. Indeed, the way God has given him to make his need known.

I really don't think that is sinful.

Do you posit that Jesus as a baby never cried from hunger?


----------



## Scott1

Miss Marple said:


> "But also, it becomes early very apparent- a child defies his parent. He takes something, mother takes it away, the child defies and throws a tantrum. It's willful."
> 
> I would take the position that exercising the will is not in and of itself sin.
> 
> If I am hungry, I go make myself a sandwich. That is exercising my will, for a reasonably felt true need.
> 
> The baby's need for milk is far greater than my need for any sandwich; of this I am certain.
> 
> Yet he can't feed himself. So, he makes his need known the only way he knows how. Indeed, the way God has given him to make his need known.
> 
> I really don't think that is sinful.
> 
> Do you posit that Jesus as a baby never cried from hunger?



The example does not suppose that crying for hunger's sake is the basis of sin.

What might be in view is, e.g. taking away a toy that the child has a pattern of throwing. It might hurt the child or someone else or damage something. Though the parent makes it clear to stop, the child persists, the parent tries to take away and the child resists and persists.... then cries long and hard.

In the real world, this happens and every parent knows it.

Obviously, the child is not honoring their father and mother, for example, and all the implications of commandment five.

It really boils down to whether one believes sin rests on the cognitive ability of the child to either appreciate their sin, or articulate it in a manner understandable by an adult.


----------



## Bob Carlberg

I think the term "infant" needs to be defined. One minute you are speaking of newborns, the next of toddlers, the next of children.

In light of Scott's addition of unborn infants in light of baptism, perhaps we should consider them as well, when a yet unborn child kicks his mother, is this not an act of sin as it dishonors its mother?

I would tend to say no. I would once again say this question is being premised on the false Greek philosophical assumption that the essence of man in his ability to reason. We keep asking if a child has the ability to reason. Is this the correct approach?

Instinct by definition requires no reasoning. It is acting without thought or reasoning. Is crying instinctual of a baby? If so then reason does not apply.

If sin is "misssing the mark" then indeed, even an infant sins by such things as soiling its diapers. Did Christ soil his diapers? This discussion rapidly digresses into absurdity.


----------



## Scott1

> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Question 24: What is sin?
> 
> Answer: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.


.


----------



## Scott1

Bob Carlberg said:


> Instinct by definition requires no reasoning. It is acting without thought or reasoning. Is crying instinctual of a baby? If so then reason does not apply.



Hard to follow your reasoning.

No one on the thread has proposed that crying, per se, is sinful. Are you suggesting that it is?

What is "instinct" in a human being based on?


----------



## Bob Carlberg

Scott,

There is no validity to the argument that the wilderness was devoid of the amounts of water needed for ritual bathing. The Qumran is an example of a dry desert community which received the majority of their rain only twice a year. There is much evidence that they were able to provide the necessary water for ritual baptism at this site. 

Also remember that God was the provider for all things necessary to the nation of Isreal for rightful living, including water. Just as a shepherds responsibility to the sheep is to lead them to water, so God did for them in the desert, providing water as needed but only as they relied upon Him. This is a great picture of itself.

Assuming for sake of argument your presumption is correct however, and the archetype was modified due to a lack of water, it still is to be presumed that the preferred method would be the pre-exisisting full immersion practice and partial immersion or sprinkling would only be a short term substitute until adequate water supplies were once again to be had.

To continue this practice today would be the equivalent of them continuing to live on Quail and Manna after entering a land flowing with milk and honey. 


Although I believe in water conservation, I do not believe that our situation today requires us to adopt water conserving baptisms.

I think we will have to agreeably disagree here.

Also, take close notice of Maimonides, Mishna Torah » Sefer Kedushah » Issurei Biah, chapter 13, halacha 7 as you mentioned: "_14. For the fetus is *considered as part of her body* and her immersion is sufficient for the fetus as well._" 

This is very specific that the fetus is not considered an individual separate from the mother. Therefore baptizing the fetus with the mother is not baptizing one who does not choose to convert. A born child is only able to convert and be baptized by approval of the Jewish Court. Are you trying to infer here that we should baptize all pregnant women as the child is yet a fetus? If not then we must recognize that born children were not baptized without the permission of the Court. Why would this be if the custom was to baptize all infants on the 8th day.

To your last argument, by the 12th century, you have Jewish cultures conducting all kinds of religious customs, to say that any of these are by default correct is a far stretch. As I previously posted, I doubt even the validity of the Ribbinical texts which arise in 200 as reliable biblical interpretations. The traditions of the Qumran and earlier Jewish communities in my view are far more reliable than those after 200.


----------



## Bob Carlberg

Scott,


My point was in regards to instinct, however, surely you did not miss the post by Tyler Ray: 


- Augustine "Confessions" VII. xi.:

_"In what ways, in that time, did I sin? Was it that I cried for the breast? If I should now so cry -- not indeed for the breast, but for food suitable to my condition -- I should be most justly laughed at and rebuked. What I did then deserved rebuke but, since I could not understand those who rebuked me, neither custom nor common sense permitted me to be rebuked."_

It was well established in my mind from previous posts that crying was being established as a determinate factor in establishing evidence of a babies sin. Had Augustine not cried, would he have not sinned? Or would we just not know he had committed the proposed sin of jealousy because he was silent? Once again, this logic is absurd.

A baby cries because it is instinctual. Even as adults, crying is an instinctual response to matters that are beyond our control, death, pain, emotional anguish etc. 

My point is that instinctual behavior is not based on cognitive thought or "reasoning". When a loved one dies you don't have to think to cry. Nor can it be willfully suppressed. We are born with instincts. The ability to recognize our mothers voice in one of these instincts. Separation from a mothers voice can cause an infant to instinctively cry. No thought or reasoning required. They do not make a connection that crying will physically obtain them the means of drawing closer to the mother. This reasoning only comes later.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Bob Carlberg said:


> There is no validity to the argument that the wilderness was devoid of the amounts of water needed for ritual bathing. The Qumran is an example of a dry desert community which received the majority of their rain only twice a year. There is much evidence that they were able to provide the necessary water for ritual baptism at this site.



No, what is INVALID is the idea that it is legitimate to compare *settlement conditions,* for a relatively small and dispersed community, living in semi-arid stasis, and having both access to water, and the time and resources necessary to construct pools for storage, or bathing, or any other purpose; and *nomadic conditions*, with a whole nation of a million or more people, in the open DESERT, on the move, living in tents; and what's more: invariably placed under various time-and-material constraints.

The two situations could not be more _dissimilar_, except for the nebulous connection between two arid-locations, neither of which shares an actual neighborhood, nor are the sizes of those neighborhood comparable.

It is improper to reason back to immersions in the desert, thinking that Israel must have immersed themselves in earlier times because of _ex post facto_ archaeological findings and literary descriptions of traditional practice (extra-biblical) from another era and location; and the _a priori_ decision on the limits of what manner of rites the term baptism is allowed to describe.

If, in fact, baptism can lawfully describe a sprinkling, as well as almost any other ritual cleansing (up to and including a full bath), then the allegation that bathing pools were required in the desert wastes where Israel was wandering about, in order that they could fulfill various requirements imposed on them, is mooted entirely.

And furthermore, all deductions from the proposal that something can't happen, or it must happen because immersion is required, are tossed out.



There are two _a prioris_ at work in this debate.
1) "Baptism has to mean a full body immersion, ergo the desert must have contained, and the wanderers must have possessed, the means to immerse."
Please note that the meticulous descriptions of the utensils and furniture prescribed by God for his religious ceremonies contain no provisions for full-body immersion. The facilities and the water would have to be ceremonially clean and dedicated for any such purpose if such a requirement were imposed. As it stands, washing requirements were either connected to the laver and its sanctified waters, or else they were generalized and needed no dedicated facilities or manner of direction. Once again, the Mosaic law, given in the wilderness, knows nothing of immersion--and especially, it is wholly opposed to the idea of a nude bath (another man-made regulation applicable in some late Jewish religious communities); n.b. Ex.20:26; 28:42. Qumran, Essenes, Pharisees or any other cultural way of life are totally irrelevant to determining a biblical baseline for legitimacy.​
2) "The Mosaic Law containing all the regulation for ceremonial life was promulgated under desert conditions for nomads in ancient times; ergo, those spatio-temporal conditions establish what is ordinarily possible and proper, thus informing exegesis.
The difference between the two _a prioris_ is two completely different social contexts accepted as the proper background. One (the second) is original to the text of Scripture when it was delivered to Moses. The other is foreign to the text relative to when it was delivered, and assumes certain traditional practices promoted in the first century are normative for interpretation. The habit of reading tradition back into the text (and beside it) was critiqued by our Lord contemporaneously as containing much error. Which should take precedence?​



Bob Carlberg said:


> Also remember that God was the provider for all things necessary to the nation of Isreal for rightful living, including water. Just as a shepherds responsibility to the sheep is to lead them to water, so God did for them in the desert, providing water as needed but only as they relied upon Him. This is a great picture of itself.


How does the acknowledged fact--that God provided everything necessary for Israel in their desert wanderings--demonstrate that they practiced immersion under those conditions? If you haven't established that immersions were required/expected in that setting, then he didn't need to provide them, and he didn't provide them in fact.

You are asking the reader to first accept the theory of immersions everywhere Israel went, and then saying "God must have provided for the need." Anything becomes possible by the same logic. Theorize that Israel needed heavenly moon-rocks for building their 12-stone altars. Well then, he must have taken some beefy Israelites up there and got them. The "if -then" only works when the "if" holds water (pun intended).

Was the wilderness a place of plenty and ease? Or a place of privation, in which circumstances God gave his people what would sustain them, while not removing them from the harshness of its discipline? If baths were the order of the day, then Israel would have had them everywhere. And so would today's nomads. They do not have them today under similar conditions. So much less would they have been available in the ancient days of wandering the wastes.




Bob Carlberg said:


> Assuming for sake of argument your presumption is correct however, and the archetype was modified due to a lack of water, it still is to be presumed that the preferred method would be the pre-exisisting full immersion practice and partial immersion or sprinkling would only be a short term substitute until adequate water supplies were once again to be had. To continue this practice today would be the equivalent of them continuing to live on Quail and Manna after entering a land flowing with milk and honey.


This is false reasoning. You claim that the archetype was "modified." Presumably, you mean that baptism is the archetype, which you claim has a fixed and certain definition. You already "know" what baptism "is supposed to be," and then you point backwards to the desert and the Law and say that the "types" of baptism are allowed by circumstances to be "less" that the fullness.

The first problem is that baptism is itself a ritual and a type. It is a sign, pointing to something else, something spiritual. Which is the same function as the OT rituals, including their cleansings. NT baptism is not a "reality" to which various OT symbols gave witness. Both sets of signs (OT & NT) point above to heavenly realities.

The second problem is the idea that the archetype undergoes any kind of "modification." I'm not completely certain what you might mean by that; at best I suppose that you mean it admits a lesser earthly-representation of itself, in order to fit into earthly conditions. It certainly cannot mean that the later practice (without biblical support) is most certainly valid, serves as an "archetype," and lesser exhibitions must have been authorized due to circumstances. This is a recipe for permitting the change of anything at all, provided one offers a plausible notion of "development." This isn't reasoning at all, but _ex post facto_ justification. It eliminates the possibility of ever *reforming* anything by reestablishing the baseline.

A third problem would be an allegation that there was a "pre-existing full immersion practice" prior to going out the wilderness. But there was no such Law prior to going out to the wilderness, and the giving of the Sinai covenant.

A fourth problem would be in assuming that the sects of Judaism that practiced the full-body baths in and around the first century is the normative background to NT baptism. Why should this be believed? By anyone, including baptists in the present day? Such requirements cannot be established by Scripture, and Jesus himself criticized the rabbinical traditions wholesale, and in particular various elaborate cleansing rituals of his day, see e.g. Mt.23:26; Mk.7:4.

As for the criticism that to sprinkle/pour is "going backward" (if it be allowed at all under primitive conditions only), this thinking *inverts* the OT-NT relationship. The NT rituals are LESS GLORIOUS in outward form than the OT ceremonies. As Paul explains in 2Cor.3, one of the effects (intended by God) of the glories of the OT Tabernacle and Temple rituals, even the whole legal-ceremonial system, was that it blinded many to the spiritual realities. People were caught up in the signs themselves, seeing them as ends, rather than as means to the end--spiritual communion with God. Our ordinances today are fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory; yet, in them, God's new covenant is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles.

Finally, it would be a fatal concession for the baptist to allow for any baptisms by sprinkling and pouring today, even for nomads in the heart of the Sahara. Because if it could be justified by circumstances, then the "baptism-means-immersion-absolutely" pillar of their argument would fall.



Bob Carlberg said:


> Although I believe in water conservation, I do not believe that our situation today requires us to adopt water conserving baptisms. I think we will have to agreeably disagree here.


I don't think you understand my critique. You make it sound as if my argument stands or falls depending on whether or not we are in the desert. I'm not making the _circumstantial_ argument. The argument is this: if those OT ceremonial cleansings were *baptisms*, then baptism _ipso facto_ does not require full-body immersion for validity. Anywhere. Any time.



Bob Carlberg said:


> This is very specific that the fetus is not considered an individual separate from the mother. Therefore baptizing the fetus with the mother is not baptizing one who does not choose to convert. A born child is only able to convert and be baptized by approval of the Jewish Court. Are you trying to infer here that we should baptize all pregnant women as the child is yet a fetus? If not then we must recognize that born children were not baptized without the permission of the Court. Why would this be if the custom was to baptize all infants on the 8th day.
> 
> To your last argument, by the 12th century, you have Jewish cultures conducting all kinds of religious customs, to say that any of these are by default correct is a far stretch. As I previously posted, I doubt even the validity of the Ribbinical texts which arise in 200 as reliable biblical interpretations. The traditions of the Qumran and earlier Jewish communities in my view are far more reliable than those after 200.


I really don't think that you are following the nature of my argument, and why I appealed to a Jewish text. You made a claim concerning Jewish beliefs and practices. You offered us no verifiable references for your claim to knowledge. And, in fact your conclusion that such practices precluded infant baptism does not follow from the premises you offered.

Not only do they not follow, they are refuted by Jewish belief and practice concerning *converts*. Where do I say anything about Jewish infants being baptized on the 8th day? The purpose of the text is to point out the fact that _contrary to your unsubstantiated claim that minors and infants were not "baptized" by Jews in mikveh,_ there is readable and debatable evidence that they were so, going back to the days of Jesus and before. Maimonedes believed that he was defending ancient practice going back to Moses himself. While that belief fails the test of Jesus and the Apostles, it does not fail the test of being traceable to the first century, and even to the intertestamental period.

You keyed in on the connection between the fetus and the mother. And apparently you ignored the far more relevant portions of that halacha (verse equivalent), as well as the fact that this "baptism" of any family and members was a one-time event, which affected even an unborn infant. In other words, the infant WAS "baptized," and as the rest of that verse tells us, so were any MINORS in the house, from infancy up to 13yrs, male and female, by the order of the court. Indeed, all the unborn children for a thousand generations were believed to have been so "baptized" in that single event.

This is so obvious, by the fact that no one whose lineage was presumed to go back to Sinai after so many generations was treated as if he needed this "baptismal" rite. He (or she) was believed to have been so "baptized" in the generation standing at the foot of Mt. Sinai. You really need to come to grips with this form of thinking that is manifestly present in Judaism, and which is about the only SURE THING that goes back all the way to Sinai. Certainly the traditions don't; but the thinking in terms of family solidarity certainly does.

If it was present in Judaism in the 12th century A.D., and believed to be mainstream thinking going back at least to the first century, it becomes extremely relevant to our beliefs concerning the NT setting. Proposing that the most isolated and splintered sects of Judaism closer to those days (Qumran, Essene, etc.) give us the most accurate reflection of first century Judaism is seriously overestimating their relevance. The reason we have more of their writings from those days is not because they were mainstream, but because they were NOT. Their texts survived in caves and hidyholes near the Dead Sea because of the semi-arid and inhospitable conditions there.



In conclusion, we can say this much: the only "hard evidence" so far produced concerning the use of mikveh--for anything remotely resembling "baptism" in NT terms--initiating Jewish converts into that religion, expressly states that "baptism" was authorized for approved MINORS (anyone from infancy to 13yrs) on the basis that it was judged objectively beneficial to that person. And even for an unborn child--whose case is addressed because he is in some sense regarded as a separate human being--he too was judged to have been "baptized" with the rest of the family (particularly in the mother's personal participation), and no later inclusion was deemed necessary to "catch him up" with the other members of the house.

This "baptism" was not required to be repeated by any subsequent generation maintaining that sect's doctrine. They were all viewed as having received that "baptism" in their fathers and mothers, JUST AS non-converting Jews were believed to have all shared in the "baptism" that took place at the foot of Sinai.


----------



## Scott1

Bob Carlberg said:


> A baby cries because it is instinctual. Even as adults, crying is an instinctual response to matters that are beyond our control, death, pain, emotional anguish etc.
> 
> My point is that instinctual behavior is not based on cognitive thought or "reasoning". When a loved one dies you don't have to think to cry. Nor can it be willfully suppressed. We are born with instincts. The ability to recognize our mothers voice in one of these instincts. Separation from a mothers voice can cause an infant to instinctively cry. No thought or reasoning required. They do not make a connection that crying will physically obtain them the means of drawing closer to the mother. This reasoning only comes later.



Still very difficult to follow your reasoning.

A baby might cry just to "put up a fuss."

It's not automatic someone cries when a loved one dies. It may happen and be appropriate, but its not an automatic "instinctual" response, it's really an emotional response that to some extent can be controlled and varies from person to person. One could use that reasoning of being an instinctual response to chopping off the arm of someone who stole something dear to you (an "instinctual" response).

God's Word teaches us that all men are morally responsible agents.

Crying because of hunger, as you cited another from Augustine is not in view here. No one has posted that crying, per se, is sinful.

And how do you know that no thought is required when a baby cries when he is separated from his mother. How do you know that? Maybe the child is reasoning the mother is being taken away, and the safety that it represents.

You still have not addressed what sin is.

Is it the Westminster summary of the doctrine of Scripture as to what it is?

Or is it a vague notion of what "the Greeks" thought?

Or is it something else, that we, as creatures subjectively determine?

That's what you are not getting to in your reasoning.


----------



## Bob Carlberg

Scott,

Augustine was not addressing hunger, he clearly states we all hunger and do not sin merely by hungering, he was addressing crying and jealousy. It is clear that Christ hungered but yet was without sin. He also wept.

Let's get to the core of the question.

I think the reoccurring idea presented in numerous posts here and what the original question pointed too is "*infants*", perhaps we should say pre-toddler, or crib babies, ones who are helpless and incapable of "reason" or continuity of thought, is it possible for them to actually *commit sin* apart from being effected (to various degrees depending on your creed and veiwpoint) by the Original Sin of Adam which required no action on their part. Is wanting your pacifier a sin, is desiring the warmth and touch of your parents a sin? Is crying because your diaper is wet a sin?

Sin is clearly defined in scripture as knowing to do good and doing it not (James 4:17)
It is also defined as missing the mark or failing to live up to the standard of Christ.
It is considered by some as breaking the commandments or failing to keep the law.

I can live with any of these definitions for the sake of this discussion. If you have another by which you are reasoning please share it.

All of these definitions require a basic knowledge. Understanding what the mark is. There are some Reformed believers who would say that the child of believing parents which has been baptized is under grace and the Covenant until they are fully aware of their falling short of the mark and the condemnation of sin (Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 5:13) . To such a point parents should not teach a child what the law as it could condemn the child prematurely. I do not believe this to be doctrinally sound. Would you?

I believe that we are admonished to "train up our children in the way that they should go" this is not a conscious effort to keep them in ignorance but rather the opposite. If they are elect they will desire a knowledge of that which is right and strive to live in a manner worthy of the covenant. 

I only have one child, he has always tried to do what was pleasing to his parents with few exceptions, he was always a happy child, he never threw a tantrum or "put up a fuss" just because he wanted to. In fact it was not until he could "reason" for himself that we had any disciplinary issues. Once he could reason, he thought his judgment was better than ours, not to do evil, but to do what he thought was a higher good for himself. This we immediately addressed. 

Friends of our with multiple children have told us that some are a challenge in every regard and others are very compliant. When at the infant stage, most babies prefer to smile and be happy, it is only ones suffering from illness such as colic, chronic ear infections, allergies, etc. that are always fussing. I reject the notion that infants "put up a fuss" just because. I would counter that if a parent is not selfish (a sin) but rather kind, gentle, patient and long suffering, the parent will attend to an infants needs. There is nothing more grieving for a parent than to discipline a child for "putting up a fuss" and then later find out it was a result of an ear infection, a medical condition or some other issue the child was not capable of adequately relating other than "putting up a fuss". I have had the privilege of caring for my elderly father in the late stages of cancer. The pain caused him to be in a constant state of discomfort and unrest. He was unable to relate this and tell us what to do to make him comfortable. He fussed quite a bit. I do not believe this was sinful, I believe it was involuntary and instinctual.

What is instinct you ask? It is an involuntary action or reaction to perceived stimuli. It stems from the subconscious portion of the brain much like a reflex.

Instinct at their base are not sinful. Example: you exclaim "oow" or "ouch" out when you smash your finger. When we allow sin nature to take over our being instincts can become sinful. Example: you exclaim curse words or profanity when you smash your finger.

If your instinct is to chop off the arm of a thief then you have some serious anger and sin issues in your life. I would contend this is not an instinct. It does not originate from the subconscious. It is a willful act of revenge.

You seem to misunderstand what I am saying about "reason"

"Reason" requires conscious thought and more specifically the ability to consciously determine what is most beneficial when given a choice. This is what the Greeks believed differentiated between man and animal or a "heathen". Remember, it has not been until recent times that uncivilized cultures were regarded as human, based on the notion that they were unable to determine right from wrong by the standards of Greco-Roman culture uncivilized were regarded as subhuman. This is the very reason why many Puritans had no problem killing American Indians as subhuman savages. They believed they were not committing a sin in killing a "savage", they were merely killing an animal. 

Roger Williams held a different opinion on this matter and the Puritans excommunicated him for amongst other things, trying to evangelize the Indians.

"Boast not proud English, of thy birth & blood;
Thy brother Indian is by birth as Good.
Of one blood God made Him, and Thee and All,
As wise, as fair, as strong, as personal."

-Roger Williams

Shame on those Puritans.

Wow, I'm really chasing rabbits here. The point is that other than inherited sin, committing sin is a conscious act. Infants In my humble opinion are not capable of conscious acts. Toddlers and children are a different issue. 

This I believe is consistent with II Helvetic confession defining "ACTUAL SINS"


Chap 8.
ORIGINAL SIN. We therefore acknowledge that there is original sin in all men.

ACTUAL SINS. We acknowledge that all other sins which arise from it are called and truly are sins, no matter by what name they may be called, whether mortal, venial or that which is said to be the sin against the Holy Spirit which is never forgiven (Mark 3:29; I John 5:16). We also confess that sins are not equal; although they arise from the same fountain of corruption and unbelief, some are more serious than others. As the Lord said, it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for the city that rejects the word of the Gospel (Matt. 10:14 f.; 11:20 ff.).


I believe the confession separates "ACTUAL SINS" from "ORIGINAL SIN" for a reason. As responsible individuals we alone are responsible for ACTUAL SINS. 

We could discuss sins of omission but that is a different beast altogether.


----------



## Scott1

Bob Carlberg said:


> I believe the confession separates "ACTUAL SINS" from "ORIGINAL SIN" for a reason.



Please quote the Confession sections so we know your basis for saying there is a qualitative difference between actual and original sin. 

And show the section of the Confession you rely on for your proposition that actual sins are the only ones deserving God's judgment.



> Instinct at their base are not sinful.



Also, what Confession section separates culpability for "instinct" as distinct from "sin."


----------



## sevenzedek

instinct = natural propensity

Since when is when is man's natural propensity to sin _not_ sinful? Don't make me get the popcorn out.


----------



## Loopie

Bob Carlberg said:


> I think the reoccurring idea presented in numerous posts here and what the original question pointed too is "*infants*", perhaps we should say pre-toddler, or crib babies, ones who are helpless and incapable of "reason" or continuity of thought, is it possible for them to actually *commit sin* apart from being effected (to various degrees depending on your creed and veiwpoint) by the Original Sin of Adam which required no action on their part. Is wanting your pacifier a sin, is desiring the warmth and touch of your parents a sin? Is crying because your diaper is wet a sin?



Bob, first of all I would say that even crib babies commit sin. My daugher is going to turn 2 years old next month, but even a year ago she would at times try to hit my wife or I if we were doing something to upset her (take her away from a toy, or something along those lines). I understand that each baby is different in the sense that some are more 'willful' than others. My daughter is very willful. The sinful nature of children can be seen simply in the fact that if you as a parent DO NOTHING, the child will grow up selfish and self-centered. Parents don't have to teach their children how to be selfish or self-centered, they have to teach them to share.

In fact, we weened our daughter off of the pacifier when she turned 1 year old. She cried every night for a week until she finally was no longer dependent upon it. In a very real sense of the term, she was 'mastered' by her pacifier. She NEEDED it (in her own mind). How often do we as adults engage in that type of behavior? People who are addicted to all kinds of things feel like they 'need' something, when they really don't. It is the same with a child. The difference is that we as parents are unable to explain to our daughter that she is becoming dependent upon something that she doesn't need, and that she is letting something 'master' her. If I could have explained this to her I would have. Yet my inability to communicate with her does not at all mean that she is not acting in a sinful, selfish way. 



Bob Carlberg said:


> Sin is clearly defined in scripture as knowing to do good and doing it not (James 4:17)
> It is also defined as missing the mark or failing to live up to the standard of Christ.
> It is considered by some as breaking the commandments or failing to keep the law.
> 
> I can live with any of these definitions for the sake of this discussion. If you have another by which you are reasoning please share it.



But also keep in mind that sin still existed in the Gentiles even when they had no law, as per Romans 2:14. The requirements of the law was written on their hearts, and so they were a law unto themselves. In Romans 1 we already saw that no one has an excuse for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Quite simply, all humans are born with a sinful nature, a propensity to sin.



Bob Carlberg said:


> All of these definitions require a basic knowledge. Understanding what the mark is.



I think Romans 1 shows that everyone has enough knowledge of the truth to be held accountable for suppressing it. I am speaking of a spiritual knowledge, not necessarily a mental/computing knowledge.



Bob Carlberg said:


> I only have one child, he has always tried to do what was pleasing to his parents with few exceptions, he was always a happy child, he never threw a tantrum or "put up a fuss" just because he wanted to. In fact it was not until he could "reason" for himself that we had any disciplinary issues. Once he could reason, he thought his judgment was better than ours, not to do evil, but to do what he thought was a higher good for himself. This we immediately addressed.



I count you blessed that you have a child that was so easy to deal with at a young age. My daughter throws tamptrums almost every day (and my wife and I do not give in to her, we employ time-out and spankings as consistently as possible). Yet our daughter is often 'set-off' by the simplest things. And she is not yet 2 years old (she has been throwing tamptrums much earlier than this). 

There is no doubt that sin might manifest itself differently in different children. All humans at birth have a natural propensity to sin, yet this does not mean that all of them sin in the worst way possible every second of the day. Yet the sinful nature is always there. 



Bob Carlberg said:


> Friends of our with multiple children have told us that some are a challenge in every regard and others are very compliant. When at the infant stage, most babies prefer to smile and be happy, it is only ones suffering from illness such as colic, chronic ear infections, allergies, etc. that are always fussing. I reject the notion that infants "put up a fuss" just because.



You mentioned that you define infants as crib-babies and pre-toddler. I can guarantee you that my daughter acted sinfully at this stage. Infants 'put up a fuss' for any number of reasons. Some might be legitimate reasons (such as needs), but others might be for reasons such as playing with a toy or having her pacifier. 



Bob Carlberg said:


> I would counter that if a parent is not selfish (a sin) but rather kind, gentle, patient and long suffering, the parent will attend to an infants needs. There is nothing more grieving for a parent than to discipline a child for "putting up a fuss" and then later find out it was a result of an ear infection, a medical condition or some other issue the child was not capable of adequately relating other than "putting up a fuss".



I don't punish my daughter for her behavior until I know what the reasons for it are. If she falls to the ground and smacks her head, I am not going to punish her because she is crying hysterically. But if it is nap time and my wife picks up our daughter to go upstairs, my daughter will be punished if she throws a fit and starts trying to hit my wife in the face because she can no longer play with a toy. My daughter has done things like this well before she turned 22 months.



Bob Carlberg said:


> What is instinct you ask? It is an involuntary action or reaction to perceived stimuli. It stems from the subconscious portion of the brain much like a reflex.



Here is a definition of instinct I found at the online dictionary:

1: a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity
2: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason 

This perfectly fits the idea of a natural propensity to sin. The natural response of any human (apart from the grace of God) is sinful. Humans, by their fallen nature, are selfish, self-centered creatures (which is sinful). 



Bob Carlberg said:


> Instinct at their base are not sinful. Example: you exclaim "oow" or "ouch" out when you smash your finger. When we allow sin nature to take over our being instincts can become sinful. Example: you exclaim curse words or profanity when you smash your finger.



There is a fine line between a reaction and an instinct. If the doctor taps on your knee, and your leg extends, that is a natural reaction (not an instinct). When someone spits in your face and insults you, the natural human instinct is to get angry and defensive. So there is a difference between reaction and instinct, even in something as simple as burning your finger or smashing it with a hammer. Naturally our sinful nature will always be in control, seeing as how we are naturally slaves to sin. Yet God every day restrains the wickedness of men. Without God's restraining hand of grace, many people in this world would be engaging in many more wicked acts than they already do. 



Bob Carlberg said:


> "Reason" requires conscious thought and more specifically the ability to consciously determine what is most beneficial when given a choice.



Ok, here is where we are entering uncharted territory. Very few people I know can actually remember what it was like to be an infant. There is simply no way for us to know that infants don't reason. Let's think about how humans think. When you 'think' to yourself, what language are you thinking in? English? Take some time to consider how one 'thinks'. Is there any evidence to suggest that infants don't 'think'? None of us can remember what it was like to be an infant, and whether or not we actually 'thought'. But based on how babies learn things, I think that they DO think. They come to learn through cause and effect that objects don't cease to exist simply because they are out of view. They don't learn this through communicated words and language, but through simple observation. They are learning and they are thinking. We should not be so quick to say that babies don't have conscious thought.



Bob Carlberg said:


> The point is that other than inherited sin, committing sin is a conscious act. Infants In my humble opinion are not capable of conscious acts. Toddlers and children are a different issue.



I must disagree. Committing sin is a spiritual act, one that everyone does. It might involve conscious decision making, as well as emotional responses, but it is a spiritual act of the will. It is a suppression of the knowledge of the truth. This knowledge is not 'head' knowledge or 'computing' knowledge, but a spiritual knowledge (a 'sense of the divine').



Bob Carlberg said:


> I believe the confession separates "ACTUAL SINS" from "ORIGINAL SIN" for a reason. As responsible individuals we alone are responsible for ACTUAL SINS.



I again must disagree. In a certain sense we are guilty of sinning in Adam as well:

Romans 5:12-14 (NASB) 
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— 
13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 

In a sense, we as humans were 'with' Adam when he sinned, and are in some way 'culpable'. This concept of a connection between a person and their unborn children is also seen in other passages:

Hebrews 7:8-10 (NASB) 
8 In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 
9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 
10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. 

We see here that in some sense Levi is responsible for receiving and paying tithes even when he was yet in the loins of his father Abraham. 

So in the end I would argue that we are guilty of original sin in two ways: First, we are guilty in the sense that Adam fell, and so now we suffer the consequences of his fall (namely we are born with a sinful nature). Second, we are actually responsible, along with Adam, for the fall. When he sinned, we sinned, for we were in him, and he was our federal representative.

It has been difficult for me as an individualistic American to grasp the concept of communal responsibility and federal headship, but it is biblical. It became much easier for me to grasp once I asked myself a simple question: How comes I complain about being held responsible for Adam's sin, but I am happy about being accounted as righteous because of Christ's obedience? Federal headship exists in both cases. If God should not impute to me any guilt for Adam's transgression, then I should not expect him to impute righteousness to me for Christ's obedience.


----------



## Bob Carlberg

Scott,

Evidently you are not familiar with II Helvetic. Please read it and you will see that I was quoting it directly. "Chapter 8" means I am referencing Chapter 8. I never said actual sins are the only ones deserving God's judgment. You seem to be interpreting my words akin to how you interpret scripture and adding some things as you see fit. What I said was they are distinctly separated in the Confession. The Confession clearly states that not all sins are equal.

Once again I quote Chapter 8:

"ORIGINAL SIN. We therefore acknowledge that there is original sin in all men.

ACTUAL SINS. We acknowledge that all other sins which arise from it are called and truly are sins, no matter by what name they may be called, whether mortal, venial or that which is said to be the sin against the Holy Spirit which is never forgiven (Mark 3:29; I John 5:16). We also confess that sins are not equal; although they arise from the same fountain of corruption and unbelief, some are more serious than others. As the Lord said, it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for the city that rejects the word of the Gospel (Matt. 10:14 f.; 11:20 ff.)."

If you wish to define instinct and sin as the same please qualify it from a confessional standpoint. And let me be clear, although it is instinctual for man to sin, that does not make all sin instinctual. Is it instinctual or willful to commit adultry?

I cite II Helvetic Chapter 9:

"WHAT MAN WAS AFTER THE FALL. Then we are to consider what man was after the fall. To be sure, his reason was not taken from him, nor was he deprived of will, and he was not entirely changed into a stone or a tree. But they were so altered and weakened that they no longer can do what they could before the fall. For the understanding is darkened, and the will which was free has become an enslaved will. Now it serves sin, not unwillingly but willingly. And indeed, it is called a will, not an unwill (ing). [Etenim voluntas, non noluntas dicitur.]

MAN DOES EVIL BY HIS OWN FREE WILL. Therefore, in regard to evil or sin, man is not forced by God or by the devil but does evil by his own free will, and in this respect he has a most free will. But when we frequently see that the worst crimes and designs of men are prevented by God from reaching their purpose, this does not take away man's freedom in doing evil, but God by his own power prevents what man freely planned otherwise. Thus Joseph's brothers freely determined to get rid of him, but they were unable to do it because something else seemed good to the counsel of God."

As you can see, the confession clearly states that sin is willful. Even in an enslaved state it is considered willful to sin. 

To say it is instinctual and unwillful would be to say that God forces us to sin. This is heresy.

This brings me to Sevenzedek:

A propensity is not = to an instinct. You have an instinct to breathe. It is not optional on your part but mandatory. You have a propensity to drink water. You may willfully choose to go without and die. 

And finally To Loopy:

I agree we have a natural propensity to sin. Propensity does not however = instinctual. Look at Def. 2 of your own writing. Instinct is "unalterable" and "without involving reason"

As to knowing the motives and thoughts of a child, God knows them but as for man?

It is not unreasonable for a child to have behavioral issues who is given a pacifier in place of the breast and then weaned from the pacifier. In fact it may be sinful for a parent to give a child a pacifier as this is a form of deceit. It serves to "passify" a child who needs the love and nourishment of its mother. If the baby is put to the breast rather than "passified" with a cold and nutritionless passifier, it will be happy and quickly nod off to sleep, with a paddifier one can only expect problems. Parents are scripturally admonished not to provoke their child to anger. If you went to a restaurant and were expecting to receive a steak and they brought you a rubber dog treat in the shape of a steak instead, would you not be indignant and frustrated?

I do not consider a 22 month old child a crib baby although they may still be in a crib. Most children are able to creep crawl or walk by 9 months and have some sort of self sufficiency and willfulness by that point. 

If you are not able to communicate with your child, how do you know what the source of their "misbehavior" or "fussing" is about? As you said, you cannot remember your days as an infant and if you cannot remember or communicate then you have no way of drawing an inerrant conclusion in a matter. You are forced to guess and it becomes your selfish will against a child's instinct. Need I point out which one will win out?

As to Adam's sin:

It has been proposed here that a child who is born of covenant parents is under the covenant and therefore under grace. As such the sins of Adam are not imputed unto him but rather to Christ and they are covered underthe blood and grace.* If so* then the only sins for which they must account for are *actual sins* for which we are individually responsible and alone. Correct?

What now of the child born of non-believing parents? 

Is grace for a child dependent on the works of the parents?

To say that we are not responsible for actual sins but rather they are Adams fault is heresy. Correct?

Last question, to whom is it referring in verse 14 when it says "even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." if we have all sinned in the likeness of Adam through Federal headship? 

I'm not inferring we haven't, just want to know who you think these people were. Was it referring to Enoch? 

And how does this square with Ezekiel 18:20 - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

Or with John 9:1-3 
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 

I think I'm being called to dinner


----------



## Loopie

Bob Carlberg said:


> I agree we have a natural propensity to sin. Propensity does not however = instinctual. Look at Def. 2 of your own writing. Instinct is "unalterable" and "without involving reason"



The problem is that it is often extremely difficult in humans to KNOW whether something was done without any use of reason whatsoever. I would argue that humans are both emotional and rational creatures. Yet even when a person seems like they are acting purely off of emotion, they are STILL using reason. For example, there have been times where someone upset me by something they said, and I felt a strong desire to verbally lash out at them and take my 'revenge' using hurtful language. When we say that someone has acted 'emotionally', we are saying that they are no longer thinking of the 'long term' but are instead rather short-sighted, only focusing on satisfying their immediate emotions and desires. This is done when we immediately respond back to people with hurtful language. We often end up regretting the harsh words that we spoke, because after our emotions have passed we finally consider the long term effects of our actions.

With that said, it is very hard in my opinion to demonstrate that humans engage in actions that involve no reason whatsoever. A good example might be the act of blinking our eyes. Often times it takes a conscious effort not to blink, but instinctively we blink, or close our eyes at certain times (such as when bright light is shined into them). Are these things simple biological reactions (such as the knee jerk)? Are these things instinct? If there truly is such a thing as instinct in humans (actions involving no reason or emotion), then obviously those actions are not sinful (just like blinking your eyes is not sinful). I have no problem with the theory that instincts, as defined here, exist. I DO have a problem with the argument that all the actions of infants are purely instinctual. I do not believe for a second that this is the case. 



Bob Carlberg said:


> As to knowing the motives and thoughts of a child, God knows them but as for man?



God knows them infallibly, but certainly man can know them. Has no one ever explained to you why they did something? Has everyone in your life lied to you about their motives? You can know them if you can find out the information (detectives do that all the time).



Bob Carlberg said:


> It is not unreasonable for a child to have behavioral issues who is given a pacifier in place of the breast and then weaned from the pacifier. In fact it may be sinful for a parent to give a child a pacifier as this is a form of deceit. It serves to "passify" a child who needs the love and nourishment of its mother.



Please define what you mean by 'behavioral issues'. I would argue that sin itself is a behavioral issue. Again, we must be careful about building our worldview based on a secular understanding of human nature, rather than what is presented to us in Scripture. Perhaps it is wrong for parents to give their children pacifiers. But then again, my daughter did not just have a 'behavioral' issue regarding the pacifier, she has had 'behavioral' issues regarding watching Sesame Street, playing with a toy, or drinking milk.



Bob Carlberg said:


> If the baby is put to the breast rather than "passified" with a cold and nutritionless passifier, it will be happy and quickly nod off to sleep, with a paddifier one can only expect problems.



And you can prove this universally? I highly doubt that all of my child's behavioral problems are simply due to the fact that we gave her a pacifier for about 8 months. There is something called a 'sin' problem, which all humans have. 



Bob Carlberg said:


> Parents are scripturally admonished not to provoke their child to anger. If you went to a restaurant and were expecting to receive a steak and they brought you a rubber dog treat in the shape of a steak instead, would you not be indignant and frustrated?



That has nothing to do with the fact that my daughter throws tamptrums today. Furthermore, there are children who naturally learn to suck their own thumb (which I did as a child). I certainly didn't consider that to be a 'rubber dog treat' (since I was giving it to myself).



Bob Carlberg said:


> I do not consider a 22 month old child a crib baby although they may still be in a crib. Most children are able to creep crawl or walk by 9 months and have some sort of self sufficiency and willfulness by that point.



So what 'age' for you becomes the 'age of accountability'? At what age can babies sin? 20 months? 12 months? Self-sufficiency has nothing to do with sinfulness. There are people in hospital beds and in retirement homes that are not self sufficient in any way. So self sufficiency has nothing to do with sinfulness. And again, there is no way to prove that newborn babes do not think, do not have a will, and do not have a sinful nature.



Bob Carlberg said:


> If you are not able to communicate with your child, how do you know what the source of their "misbehavior" or "fussing" is about?



Cause and effect. If I take something from my daughter, and she starts throwing a tamptrum and pointing at the object, then I know what caused the misbehavior. Pretty simple.



Bob Carlberg said:


> As you said, you cannot remember your days as an infant and if you cannot remember or communicate then you have no way of drawing an inerrant conclusion in a matter. You are forced to guess and it becomes your selfish will against a child's instinct. Need I point out which one will win out?



I would like to think that my will is not selfish, because I am saved by Grace through faith in Christ. I seek to serve the Lord in ALL things, which includes raising my children. Certainly I sin every day, but I am not a slave to sin anymore. Furthermore, since neither one of us can remember what it was like to be an infant, we should let scripture be our guide (as it should always be).



Bob Carlberg said:


> As to Adam's sin:
> 
> It has been proposed here that a child who is born of covenant parents is under the covenant and therefore under grace. As such the sins of Adam are not imputed unto him but rather to Christ and they are covered underthe blood and grace.* If so* then the only sins for which they must account for are *actual sins* for which we are individually responsible and alone. Correct?



I don't quite understand what you are suggesting. I believe that my children are born under the curse of Adam, like every other child that is born on this earth. What do you mean when you say that your children are 'covered' under the blood and grace? Are you saying that they are guaranteed to be Elect? Are they saved? That is a discussion for another time, but I was just curious as to what you meant by what you said.



Bob Carlberg said:


> What now of the child born of non-believing parents?



From my perspective the children of ALL human parents are born under the curse of Adam. I certainly do believe in Common Grace, and I do think it is an act of grace that my child will grow up learning about the Lord, whereas many other children in this nation will not. 



Bob Carlberg said:


> Is grace for a child dependent on the works of the parents?



Nope. God uses various means to accomplish his will. Christian parents might very well be the means by which God calls a child to repentance and faith. 



Bob Carlberg said:


> To say that we are not responsible for actual sins but rather they are Adams fault is heresy. Correct?



You are misunderstanding what I said. I never said that OUR sins are Adam's fault. No. What I said was that we are in some way responsible for Adam's sin, and so WE are also at fault too. Yet at the same time we DO commit our OWN sins. I never denied that we commit actual sins. In fact, I was simply showing you that even little babies can act in sinful ways.



Bob Carlberg said:


> Last question, to whom is it referring in verse 14 when it says "even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." if we have all sinned in the likeness of Adam through Federal headship?



No, we have all sinned in our own ways, and I have never denied this. But keep in mind that Paul made it very clear in verse 18 that through the act of one man, condemnation came to all men. It wasn't just that we had to deal with the consequences of Adam's sin. In a certain way we were responsible as well, because we were in him.



Bob Carlberg said:


> I'm not inferring we haven't, just want to know who you think these people were. Was it referring to Enoch?



I am not sure what you are asking here. But I think it is clear that even though our sin may not be 'like' Adam's sin, or as 'heinous' as Adam's sin, all have still sinned, and death reigns over all.



Bob Carlberg said:


> And how does this square with Ezekiel 18:20 - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."



Great question, because now you have to ask yourself why Achan's family was punished for his sin, if in fact there is no such thing as communal responsibility:

Joshua 7:22-26 (NASB) 
22 So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent; and behold, it was concealed in his tent with the silver underneath it. 
23 They took them from inside the tent and brought them to Joshua and to all the sons of Israel, and they poured them out before the LORD. 
24 Then Joshua and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, the silver, the mantle, the bar of gold, his sons, his daughters, his oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent and all that belonged to him; and they brought them up to the valley of Achor. 
25 Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? The LORD will trouble you this day." And all Israel stoned them with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones. 
26 They raised over him a great heap of stones that stands to this day, and the LORD turned from the fierceness of His anger. Therefore the name of that place has been called the valley of Achor to this day. 

I would argue then that Ezekiel is giving hope to the people, encouraging them to come back and turn to God. Furthermore, the example that Ezekiel gives is with regard to social justice. Do you think that Ezekiel was making the argument that the son was absolutely sinless? Not at all.



Bob Carlberg said:


> Or with John 9:1-3
> As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
> "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.



I completely agree that many things happen that are not necessarily the result of sin. I am not sure what you intend to show through the example of the blind man. Obviously the disciples believed that someone must have sinned in order for the man to be born blind. But that is not necessarily the case. Yet how does this demonstrate that my arguments are incorrect?

In the end, if we do not believe in federal headship and communal responsibility, how can we claim to have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us? I was not there physically when Christ lived, died, and rose again, just like I wasn't there physically when Adam sinned. It would be a double standard on my part to accept the fact that I am declared righteous because of Christ's obedience, while at the same time deny that I previously had been declared guilty because of Adam's disobedience.


----------



## py3ak

Bob Carlberg said:


> It has been proposed here that a child who is born of covenant parents is under the covenant and therefore under grace. As such the sins of Adam are not imputed unto him but rather to Christ and they are covered underthe blood and grace. If so then the only sins for which they must account for are actual sins for which we are individually responsible and alone. Correct?



Please point me to where this has been proposed. Such an understanding is certainly inconsistent with Reformed theology, and the proposer needs to be reminded to refrain from advocating unconfessional positions.


----------



## Scott1

Bob Carlberg said:


> The Confession clearly states that not all sins are equal.



Bob, "not equal" meaning what?

On the one hand you say original and actual sins are "not equal," implying one is less culpable(?) than the other. On the other you say, 


Bob Carlberg said:


> I never said actual sins are the only ones deserving God's judgment.


implying they are both culpable.

So, what is the difference you say exists doctrinally, from the standpoint of their deserving God's judgment?


----------



## Scott1

Bob Carlberg said:


> And let me be clear, although it is instinctual for man to sin, that does not make all sin instinctual. Is it instinctual or willful to commit adultry?



???


----------



## PanamaPuritan

I am new and young, but I tend to lean toward the opinion that infants do commit sin. I usually am somewwhat skeptical of what the empirical sciences have to say concerning infants (with all due respect to those who come to the conclusions that many scholars in those fields do) because I do not accept inductive arguments as valid (that is, unless they proceed from a first principle that could be examined). I would rather first use rigorous deductive reasoning from Scripture to ascertain whether this doctrine is able to withstand scrutiny. The reasons for this are because I find the Scriptures to be absolute knowledge, therefore I would not be swayed to a particular direction by virtue of approximations or probability arguments. 

For example. Let us consider that neuroscience has something to say about an infant. A neuroscientist comes to the conclusion that infant behavior is due to X or Y reasons, and not because of suffering and agony in Adam of having entered into a sinful world. If the reasons for the neuroscientist’s conclusions have to do with an a priori rejection of original sin(ning) then the conclusion is going to be faulty on Scriptural presuppositions. But let us suppose that the scientist is a Christian who affirms original sin(ning). Let us say that they come to the conclusion that infants do X because of Y. If they did so independently of Christian presuppositions (maybe based on independent reason and / or sense experience) How did they come to this conclusion but by a method other than deduction (from scripture)? How did they deduce their conclusions? How can we be sure that these theories are true? What would be a method (non-inductive) by which we would be able to test the truth of a statement concerning all infants if not by the propositions of the Bible? (note the term “all infants.”) 

-A few brothers here have used Scriptures in Romans effectively, I believe, and these two were also supplied (one referring to reprobate children):

-Psalm 58.3: The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. 

-Isaiah 48.8: Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

This is not an easy subject to discuss. If we are only within Biblical territory, so to speak, and we say that an infant is in need of grace, then why are they in need of grace? Why are all infants in need of grace? The answer, I believe, is because they are sinners – something is spiritually wrong with them – they have transgressed the law by virtue of not having been perfect, unless we hold to infant regeneration in some or many cases, and if so, then the baby would be a justified sinner. I am one of those who does believe in infant regeneration because I reject the empirical definition of “reason” that some people often employ “as some ability whereby they are able to learn this or that, or reason this or that.” God could simply cause elect infants to be regenerated independently of whether empirically they are able to do this or that. 
I think that to say that an infant is not a sinner would be to not follow the logical issue and content of the definition of original sin. If they are fallen in Adam, I believe that this makes them automatically sinners from conception (a volition). If not, then what would be the use of saying that there is original sin unless it is operative? Would it not be the same to say that there is no original sin until the infant sins and somehow activates it? In other words, in my opinion, original sin manifests itself immediately by necessity, not by a potentiality that begins to show up as the infant “grows into reason.” 
Infants die. But why? I say Because they are sinners. The curse of sin holds some down, and very sadly, they perish. This is indeed very difficult. Infants die in the womb.
In other words, my point is that original sin, in order to be what it is, must manifest itself as a volition in any creature, and another part of this argument focuses on the need for grace being a precondition of being a sinner by commission and omission as well. These are not primary matters, so I am not one to press my points at all, but I am just content with this one post. It should not create any difficulty among brethren at all. Thanks.


----------



## Bob Carlberg

py3ak said:


> Bob Carlberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been proposed here that a child who is born of covenant parents is under the covenant and therefore under grace. As such the sins of Adam are not imputed unto him but rather to Christ and they are covered underthe blood and grace. If so then the only sins for which they must account for are actual sins for which we are individually responsible and alone. Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please point me to where this has been proposed. Such an understanding is certainly inconsistent with Reformed theology, and the proposer needs to be reminded to refrain from advocating unconfessional positions.
Click to expand...


It was not a board member who proposed this directly, it was Rev. Bryn MacPhail in his article titled:_ John Calvin: Infant Baptism_ Here is a direct quote as taken from the link in post #35 

"*Believer's Infants Are A 'Holy Seed'*
The case for baptizing infants rests primarily on the claim that "the transition from the 'old' to the 'new' form of God's covenant . . . did not affect the principle of family solidarity in the covenant community"(Packer 214). This is just an elaborate way of saying the Old Testament promise to bless to the thousandth generation(Ex.20:6) applies to the Church as well. Calvin plainly affirms that the promise is the same for both covenants(Inst.4, 16, 4). Both covenant promises receive God's fatherly favour of forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Calvin argues that circumcision was the token by which the Jews were "assured of adoption as the people and household of God"(Inst.4, 16, 4). Similarly, the people of the Church are consecrated to God through baptism, "to be reckoned as his people"(Inst.4, 16, 4).

Calvin reminds us that the children of the Jews were called a holy seed. They had been made heirs to the covenant and distinguished from the children of the impious. For the same reason, Calvin argues, the children of Christians are considered holy; and by the apostle's testimony they differ from the unclean seed of idolators(1Cor.7:14). It naturally follows then, that if infants share the covenant status with their parent, it is fitting "to give them a sign of that status and of their place in the covenant community"(Packer 215). "

And,
"*
Children Should Also Have Life In Christ*
Calvin stands opposed to those who would have children barred from baptism because of their age. These people claim that young children are unable to understand the mystery signified in baptism and are therefore considered as children of Adam until they reach an appropriate age for the second birth(Inst.4, 16, 17). Calvin vehemently contests that "God's truth everywhere opposes all these arguments"(Inst.4, 16, 17). Calvin accurately observes that if infants are regarded as the children of Adam, "they are left in death, since in Adam we can but die(Rom.5:12)"(Inst.4, 16, 17). On the contrary, Calvin points out, Christ commands that the children be brought to him(Matt.19:14). Calvin anticipates the objection "that infants do not perish though they are counted as children of Adam" and refutes it manifesting that Scripture declares that in Adam all die, and it follows that no hope of life remains except in Christ(1Cor.15:22; Inst.4, 16, 17). When we recall that Christ declares that he is life(John 11:25), we must acquiesce with Calvin when he asserts that "we must be engrafted into him in order to be freed from bondage to death"(Inst.4, 16, 17).

Calvin also anticipates the objection, "how are infants, unendowed with knowledge of good or evil, regenerated?"(Inst.4, 16, 17). Calvin's reply is that "God's work, though beyond our understanding, is still not annulled"(Inst.4, 16, 17). Calvin is cognizant of the fact that if infants are born sinners, as Scripture affirms(Eph.2:3; Ps.51:5), either they remain hateful to God, or they must be justified. While Calvin agrees that the water itself does not necessarily save, he reminds us that John the Baptist was sanctified in his mother's womb(Luke 1:15), and for Calvin this is "something he could do in others"(Inst.4, 16, 17).

When others object to infant baptism on the grounds that baptism is given for the forgiveness of sins, Calvin suggests that this "abundantly supports our view"(Inst.4, 16, 22). Calvin argues that since we are born sinners, we need forgiveness and pardon "from the time in our mother's womb"(Inst.4, 16, 22). Since God does not withhold from children the hope of mercy(Matt.19:14), Calvin argues that "they must not be deprived of the sign"(Inst.4, 16, 22)."

I am not particularly inclined to agree with Rev. Bryn McPhail or John Calvin in this particular matter because as I stated, it would rely on the works of the parents to have baptism administered if the concept of baptism being a seal is correct. I'm a little confused here whether it is merely a sign or it is a seal, the two seem to be used interchangeably but to me have very different connotations) I guess the concept of federal headship could be evoked here saying that the child was in the father when the father believed and therefore the covenant of grace extended to the father is extended to the child? If this is correct then as long as believing parents have their child baptized and the covenant is sealed, and their children do likewise, then all continuing practitioners continuing in the covenant all will be saved? I am not sure I would embrace this as the basis for sound doctrine. 

So, are infants "Holy" due to sanctification in the womb" brought about by their parents belief and being members of the covenant community?


----------



## Bob Carlberg

Scott1 said:


> Bob Carlberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confession clearly states that not all sins are equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob, "not equal" meaning what?
> 
> On the one hand you say original and actual sins are "not equal," implying one is less culpable(?) than the other. On the other you say,
> 
> 
> Bob Carlberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said actual sins are the only ones deserving God's judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implying they are both culpable.
> 
> So, what is the difference you say exists doctrinally, from the standpoint of their deserving God's judgment?
Click to expand...


Scott,

I'm having trouble here. You accused me of not giving confessional reference for what I said and asked me to give confessional evidence which I did (twice). Now you want me to form an opinion which requires speculation as to what the confession means when it says all sins are not equal. This seems a bit circular. 

The Confession simply states that all sins are not equal and states the scripture reference upon which it bases that conclusion. I am not qualified to say which are the greater or lesser sins and the confession does not comprehensively delineate specific sins nor assign specific judgements to them. It does separate Original Sin and Actual Sin in its construction and I believe this was done with purpose as they were historically viewed separately. Culpability is not at issue here. All sin deserves judgment and man is culpable, however, the Reformed position is that grace is bestowed through the new covenant for both Original Sin *and* actual sins committed before we are believers correct? 

Do you have issue with the confession or am I unclear or incorrect in stating its position?

Do you take the position that believers will be held responsible and judged for Original Sin and for actual sins they committed before they were grafted into the covenant community?


----------



## Scott1

Bob Carlberg said:


> to form an opinion which requires speculation as to what the confession means



We assume the Confessions are intended to be clear,
that was their purpose- to clearly summarize the doctrine of Scripture on the matters to which they speak.
To be understood as a unifying basis for communion.
That's not based on them being "untouchable" because of speculation.




Bob Carlberg said:


> All sin deserves judgment and man is culpable, however, the Reformed position is that grace is bestowed through the new covenant for both Original Sin and actual sins committed before we are believers correct?



It sounds now like you are agreeing with the Helvetic and other Confessions now but then you add "however." God initiates (first) grace by regenerating a person, yes.
But what does that have to do with your earlier points about infants (possibly adults) not being culpable for sin because of "instinct?"


----------



## py3ak

Bob Carlberg said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Carlberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been proposed here that a child who is born of covenant parents is under the covenant and therefore under grace. As such the sins of Adam are not imputed unto him but rather to Christ and they are covered underthe blood and grace. If so then the only sins for which they must account for are actual sins for which we are individually responsible and alone. Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please point me to where this has been proposed. Such an understanding is certainly inconsistent with Reformed theology, and the proposer needs to be reminded to refrain from advocating unconfessional positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was not a board member who proposed this directly, it was Rev. Bryn MacPhail in his article titled:_ John Calvin: Infant Baptism_ Here is a direct quote as taken from the link in post #35
> 
> [...]
> 
> I am not particularly inclined to agree with Rev. Bryn McPhail or John Calvin in this particular matter because as I stated, it would rely on the works of the parents to have baptism administered if the concept of baptism being a seal is correct. I'm a little confused here whether it is merely a sign or it is a seal, the two seem to be used interchangeably but to me have very different connotations) I guess the concept of federal headship could be evoked here saying that the child was in the father when the father believed and therefore the covenant of grace extended to the father is extended to the child? If this is correct then as long as believing parents have their child baptized and the covenant is sealed, and their children do likewise, then all continuing practitioners continuing in the covenant all will be saved? I am not sure I would embrace this as the basis for sound doctrine.
> 
> So, are infants "Holy" due to sanctification in the womb" brought about by their parents belief and being members of the covenant community?
Click to expand...


Thank you for clarifying. I am not familiar with McPhail's article outside of your quote, but I do not understand the train of reasoning that leads from what you quoted to the conclusion you draw. Certainly reading the excerpt you supplied from McPhail's article I find nothing that would lead me to conclude that he teaches that the original sin of an infant born to covenant parents is imputed to Christ, leaving the child responsible only for actual sin. For one thing, imputation is not broken up in parts. Just as Christ's righteousness is not doled out to me piece by piece, nor is my sin partially imputed to him.

Also, what you describe in the paragraph beginning "I am not particularly inclined to agree" sounds like covenant nomism, not anything taught by Calvin or the confessions. Between E.P. Sanders and Thomas Watson there is not a lot of overlap! Again I am quite unclear as to how you derive it from the quotes presented above. Perhaps there is some confusion about the administration of the covenant of grace, or the connection between the visible and the invisible church. 

Infants born to one or more believing parents are federally holy, included in the administration of the covenant of grace. When dying in infancy, there is no reason to doubt that they were elect. But their inclusion in the administration of the covenant of grace, their membership in the visible church, does not in and of itself identify them as elect or regenerate or justified. Later they may have a definite conversion experience, or they might grow up in such a way that they cannot remember any time when they were not believers - that is up to the Spirit, who blows where he wills. They may be like Timothy; like Nicodemus; like Caiaphas - there's no way to tell ahead of time. Adopting a "wait-and-see" approach logically results in deferring baptism until death seems near, because they might always apostasize tomorrow.

I would suggest consulting Robert Shaw's _The Reformed Faith_ (a commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith) as a principal aid in understanding the language of the confession, and the concepts of Reformed theology.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello again, Bob – I see you’re really trying to come to grips with this teaching of Scripture (though you may not be so sure it _is_ of Scripture).

Neither circumcision nor baptism are “the works of the parents” but simply a faith-based response of obedience to a command of God. A question for _you_, Bob: are _you_, as a Christian, to be considered the seed of Abraham? This is significant, for the command to Abraham was, “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” (Gen 17:10). Throughout the entire Jewish era, from Abraham to Christ, this was required of all males who were to enter the Abrahamic covenant. Paul talks of it on this wise:
“And he received the *sign* of circumcision, a *seal* of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised” (Rom 4:11-12).​ 
Back to the question, Are _you_ of the seed of Abraham? Paul (again) says,
“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. . . And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:27, 29).​ 
This is so because Paul just finished saying that the covenant promise (that God would be Abraham’s and his seeds’ God) was realized in Christ (Gal 3:16) and that the covenant was not annulled by the law but continued on until and into Christ (Gal 3:3:17, 18), and if you are “baptized into Christ” (Gal 3:27) you are Abraham’s seed because you are in THE Seed of Abraham. So those covenant commands back in Genesis 17 are still in force for the seed, only the “token” (Gen 17:11) – i.e., the sign – has changed because entrance into the covenant has been _universalized_ so as to receive women and girls. You will note the language above of Paul, that he calls it a sign – aka a token – meaning an outward mark or signifier, and also a seal, meaning a *certifying* sign, as in a legal transaction. Though closely related, there is a marked distinction between sign and seal. You may also have heard the expression, that circumcision of old and baptism of the present are outward signs of an inward reality, or outward signifiers of an inward substance.

Now I realize it gets less clear at this point. But until this point it is unmistakably clear – unless one’s baptistic lens fogs up the clear statements and requirements of Scripture.

How the Lord works with regard to these two signs and seals – though we will henceforth refer only to the present token, baptism – may be mysterious (indiscernible) to us. Yet keep in mind this in God’s eyes was always a spiritual transaction between God and His people, as it is written,
And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deut 30:6)​ 
That it was not always efficacious unto regeneration in every individual is God’s prerogative of election. If you cannot follow thus far, you will not discern any further, for these things I have spoken of are foundational.


----------



## Miss Marple

Is there no difference between original and actual sin, then?

Since infants are in fact cursed with original sin, must we believe they are actively sinning from birth?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

A postscript to my post above:

Paul, as one of the prime interpreters of Jesus Christ’s work, says in his epistle to the Colossians,
“And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 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: 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. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses” (Col 2:10-13).​ 
This passage reiterates Paul’s revelation in Romans 6:3-5 of our union with Christ signified by the token of baptism (having been effected inwardly by the Spirit), though in Colossians this baptism is explicitly called “the circumcision of Christ” and one “made without hands”, that is, by God in the Spirit. This spiritual reality is made effectual in us by faith in “the operation [working] of God” who likewise raised Christ from the dead.

This is the language used by the Holy Spirit to describe the nature of the inner reality of regeneration: it is the circumcision of the heart – made without hands – in one who is “dead in sins and the uncircumcision of [the] flesh”, resulting in one being “quickened...together with Christ . . . and...raised...up together” (Eph 2:5, 6) in Christ Jesus.

When Paul speaks of it here it is referring primarily to those of age as it is effected “through the faith” of them (Col 2:12) in God’s working; in the first mission fields of Colosse (and elsewhere) the converts were first and foremost adult Gentiles (though some were Jews); and this does not nullify the anciently held administration of the covenant to their infant seed.

---------

Miss Marple,

Unless a child has been regenerated by God in the womb – and it certainly does happen – then he or she is born a sinner, and that one is dead to God, and an enemy of His; what would an actual sin of such a little one be? Transgression of the first great commandment: “thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength” (Deut 6:5). We know that an infant in utero can love God by John the Baptist’s case (Luke 1:15, 41), Jesus’ case (He always pleased and loved His Father), Jeremiah’s case (Jer 1:5), and I could go on.

I find this saying by Calvin very interesting: 

“Truly Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy in order that he might sanctify in himself his elect from every age without distinction. For, to wipe out the guilt of the disobedience which had been committed in our flesh, he took that very flesh that in it, for our sake, and in our stead, he might achieve perfect obedience. Thus, he was conceived of the Holy Spirit in order that, in the flesh taken, fully imbued with the holiness of the Spirit, he might impart that holiness to us. If we have in Christ the most perfect example of all the graces which God bestows upon his children, in this respect also he will be for us proof that the age of infancy is not utterly averse to sanctification. (_Institutes_, Book IV, chapter XVI, Sect. 18; Battles Edition)”​ 
Now I haven’t thought this through completely yet, but let me just put it out there (for review and critique): if God “hath chosen us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4), does our election in Christ have some sanctifying quality in God’s eyes with regard to us?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

<Moderating>

This thread is in the general theology forum, so I'm recommending that when anyone offers a response that comes from an distinctly paedo-baptist or credo-baptist position (assuming you recognize the fact), please modulate your statements so that they do not appear to answer for Christianity, or this Board, as a whole. Respect your conscientious brethren.

And bear in mind the purpose/title of the thread. If baptism is going to be dragged into the discussion, please make sure your responses draw back toward the topic, rather than go tangentally to it, and become points of contention beside the main topic.

Thank you.

</Moderating>


----------



## Bob Carlberg

Scott1 said:


> Bob Carlberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> to form an opinion which requires speculation as to what the confession means
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We assume the Confessions are intended to be clear,
> that was their purpose- to clearly summarize the doctrine of Scripture on the matters to which they speak.
> To be understood as a unifying basis for communion.
> That's not based on them being "untouchable" because of speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Carlberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> All sin deserves judgment and man is culpable, however, the Reformed position is that grace is bestowed through the new covenant for both Original Sin and actual sins committed before we are believers correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds now like you are agreeing with the Helvetic and other Confessions now but then you add "however." God initiates (first) grace by regenerating a person, yes.
> But what does that have to do with your earlier points about infants (possibly adults) not being culpable for sin because of "instinct?"
Click to expand...



Scott, You asked me to back a statement I made from a confessional view which I have forthwith done.

Do you concede that all sins are not equal? If you do not concede that all sins are not equal, or that there is a difference between Original Sin as defined by the Confession and Actual Sin as defined by the Confession then we can go no further.

Can you show from a confessional view that all sins are equal both original and actual.

Do you believe the following Scriptures:

Isaiah 53

II Cor. 5:19

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

II Cor 5:21

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Ps. 32: 1-2

Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no deceit!

Romans 4: 7-8
"Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

Rom. 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 

I believe it is quite clear that although we are all sinners, Original or Actual, not all will be held equally accountable.

Those who are not held accountable for sin are 1) those who were not knowledgeable of the law (as found in Romans 5:13 "for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.") and 2) those who have placed their faith in the atonement of Christs blood (as found in Romans 5:9 "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.")

These are the only ones who I believe are assured of salvation.

Yes, their are some allegorical indications that God may bestow grace upon children of believers under the covenant but it is allegorical at best. 

By the same token I do not believe there is a specific age at which one looses God's favors and sin damns them or at which grace expires and they become fully accountable, nor does a conscious choice to remain ignorant of the law or the gospel have any redeeming value. God knows the heart and he will judge.

Baptism by any means has no redeeming or regenerating value.

Can we agree here?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bob, you said, “Baptism by any means has no redeeming or regenerating value.” I could agree with the “regenerating” aspect, but as baptism is part of the Lord’s way of redeeming us – putting the outward sign and seal on us who believe in Him and enter His covenant – it surely has value in the plan of redemption.


----------



## Bob Carlberg

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello again, Bob – I see you’re really trying to come to grips with this teaching of Scripture (though you may not be so sure it _is_ of Scripture).
> 
> Neither circumcision nor baptism are “the works of the parents” but simply a faith-based response of obedience to a command of God. A question for _you_, Bob: are _you_, as a Christian, to be considered the seed of Abraham? This is significant, for the command to Abraham was, “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” (Gen 17:10). Throughout the entire Jewish era, from Abraham to Christ, this was required of all males who were to enter the Abrahamic covenant. Paul talks of it on this wise:
> “And he received the *sign* of circumcision, a *seal* of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised” (Rom 4:11-12).​



I do not believe I am the seed of Abraham. I believe I am an adopted son with all legal rights and inheritance of a legitimate son. I believe Paul was speaking to Jews. 

Paul is also clear that circumcision is of no value unless one intends to keep the mosaic law. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Back to the question, Are _you_ of the seed of Abraham? Paul (again) says,
> “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. . . And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:27, 29).​



I would interpret the "baptized into Christ" as a reference made referring to purification. Just as baptism by water was a form of ritual purification for the Jew, so being baptized in Christ, the Living Water, is a purification. 

There were many who observed the practice of circumcision besides the descendents of Abraham (Babylonians, Egyptians, etc) but they were not considered part of the nation of Israel by virtue of circumcision. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> This is so because Paul just finished saying that the covenant promise (that God would be Abraham’s and his seeds’ God) was realized in Christ (Gal 3:16) and that the covenant was not annulled by the law but continued on until and into Christ (Gal 3:3:17, 18), and if you are “baptized into Christ” (Gal 3:27) you are Abraham’s seed because you are in THE Seed of Abraham. So those covenant commands back in Genesis 17 are still in force for the seed, only the “token” (Gen 17:11) – i.e., the sign – has changed because entrance into the covenant has been _universalized_ so as to receive women and girls. You will note the language above of Paul, that he calls it a sign – aka a token – meaning an outward mark or signifier, and also a seal, meaning a *certifying* sign, as in a legal transaction. Though closely related, there is a marked distinction between sign and seal. You may also have heard the expression, that circumcision of old and baptism of the present are outward signs of an inward reality, or outward signifiers of an inward substance.


Up until this point, we are just arguing minor interpretation differences and semantic points but here it begins to get a little touchy for me. You say that baptism is the equivalent of signing a legal transaction. We know that an unsigned legal certificate is worth nothing more than the paper which it is written on. The signing is actually just as important as the document itself. Perhaps this is twisting your words a bit, but are you not hereby attributing equal redemptive value to the act of baptism and belief(faith)? What if one dies in a unbaptized state?




Jerusalem Blade said:


> Now I realize it gets less clear at this point. But until this point it is unmistakably clear – unless one’s baptistic lens fogs up the clear statements and requirements of Scripture.



Yes it is very difficult to overcome denominational bias



Jerusalem Blade said:


> How the Lord works with regard to these two signs and seals – though we will henceforth refer only to the present token, baptism – may be mysterious (indiscernible) to us. Yet keep in mind this in God’s eyes was always a spiritual transaction between God and His people, as it is written,i
> 
> I have difficulty with the link between circumcision of the heart and baptism, I assume this is because of my predisposition to Baptist bias. I am however diligently studying and appreciate you information, links etc. from which you support your view.
> 
> I am trying to refocus away from the issue of paedo baptism to the original question of infants committing sin, but I do see them as inseparable* if *the baptism=covenant=redemption for children of believers theory is credible as this would mean that the Holy Spirit would prevent them from committing sin and preserve them if they are called, at least until they make a conscious confession.​


----------



## Bob Carlberg

py3ak said:


> Infants born to one or more believing parents are federally holy, included in the administration of the covenant of grace. When dying in infancy, there is no reason to doubt that they were elect. But their inclusion in the administration of the covenant of grace, their membership in the visible church, does not in and of itself identify them as elect or regenerate or justified. Later they may have a definite conversion experience, or they might grow up in such a way that they cannot remember any time when they were not believers - that is up to the Spirit, who blows where he wills. They may be like Timothy; like Nicodemus; like Caiaphas - there's no way to tell ahead of time. Adopting a "wait-and-see" approach logically results in deferring baptism until death seems near, because they might always apostasize tomorrow.
> 
> I would suggest consulting Robert Shaw's _The Reformed Faith_ (a commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith) as a principal aid in understanding the language of the confession, and the concepts of Reformed theology.



If they are federally holy then they would not be conceived in sin even from the womb because they existed in the federal headship prior to conception correct? 

If the are federally holy then the inclination to sin is not in them.

If they are federally holy , then they do not commit actual sins and are not guilty of Original Sin as one cannot be sinful and holy simultaneously correct?


The concept of "never remember a time when they were not believers" is a bit foreign to me as a Baptist but I understand what you are saying and see no biblical requirement for a "salvation experience" moment as long as they have grown into a full understanding of the gospel, have accepted it by faith, and have not departed along the way.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Bob Carlberg said:


> I do not believe I am the seed of Abraham. I believe I am an adopted son with all legal rights and inheritance of a legitimate son. I believe Paul was speaking to Jews.


Just a quick question. How does this measure up to the following passage? 



> Gal 3:28 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.
> Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.





Bob Carlberg said:


> Paul is also clear that circumcision is of no value unless one intends to keep the mosaic law.



In context of seeking justification before God I believe you are correct. That was the heresy St. Paul was disputing in Galatians. At the same time Timothy was circumcised for another purpose and it didn't render him to be in that circumstance which St. Paul is speaking of.


----------



## py3ak

Bob Carlberg said:


> If they are federally holy then they would not be conceived in sin even from the womb because they existed in the federal headship prior to conception correct?


No. It was David who confessed that his mother had conceived him in sin, though he was federally holy. 



Bob Carlberg said:


> If the are federally holy then the inclination to sin is not in them.


Incorrect. A professing believer, baptized as an adult is also one in whose flesh dwells no good thing.



Bob Carlberg said:


> If they are federally holy , then they do not commit actual sins and are not guilty of Original Sin as one cannot be sinful and holy simultaneously correct?


No. Do you know what federal holiness means?



Bob Carlberg said:


> The concept of "never remember a time when they were not believers" is a bit foreign to me as a Baptist but I understand what you are saying and see no biblical requirement for a "salvation experience" moment as long as they have grown into a full understanding of the gospel, have accepted it by faith, and have not departed along the way.


Great!


----------



## Scott1

Bob Carlberg said:


> Do you concede that all sins are not equal?



Bob, you have not answered- equal in what sense?


Bob Carlberg said:


> I believe it is quite clear that although we are all sinners, Original or Actual, not all will be held equally accountable.



It's hard to understand your point,
all sin is worthy of judgment, you said that above, but now you seem to be retracting it.


----------



## Loopie

Bob Carlberg said:


> Do you concede that all sins are not equal? If you do not concede that all sins are not equal, or that there is a difference between Original Sin as defined by the Confession and Actual Sin as defined by the Confession then we can go no further.



What do you mean by equal? If we are talking about earthly consequences, then obviously there are unequal effects from various sins. Taking the Lord's name in vain has less of an 'earthly' effect or consequence then murdering someone. But that does not necessarily mean that taking the Lord's name in vain is not a serious offense. Since God's standards are perfection, one deviation merits death for the sinner. If one never repents of their sins, then one can only expect eternal separation from God, regardless of how 'many' or 'few' sins they committed. This is because we don't just commit a sin and then have a period (let's say 30 minutes) of not sinning, and then sin again. Sin is a continuous act of rebellion against God; a continuous suppression of the truth. It is true that our rebelliousness manifests itself in various 'sins' that are committed at specific points in time. Yet for the ENTIRE time, even when we are sleeping, our heart of stone has always remained a heart of stone. It does not revert back and forth between a heart of stone and a heart of flesh. From that perspective we never stop rebelling until God replaces that heart of stone with a heart of flesh.




Bob Carlberg said:


> Those who are not held accountable for sin are 1) those who were not knowledgeable of the law (as found in Romans 5:13 "for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.") and 2) those who have placed their faith in the atonement of Christs blood (as found in Romans 5:9 "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.")
> 
> These are the only ones who I believe are assured of salvation.



I disagree. Paul also makes it clear that even the Gentiles, who had no law, had the requirements of the law written on their hearts. For that reason they were a law unto themselves, and were held accountable to it:

Romans 2:14-15 (NASB) 
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 

Furthermore, what are your thoughts concerning Romans 1:

Romans 1:18-20 (NASB) 
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 

Now, I do believe that people will be judged according to how much 'light' they have been given. The Jews, and in particular the Pharisees, were given a great amount of light (special revelation), yet they suppressed that truth continuously. Those who never been exposed to God's special revelation, nor have heard of Jesus, have obviously not been given very much light at all. Yet they have STILL been given some light, as is described in Romans 1:18-20 (enough light to make them responsible). People are still held accountable for their response to the light they have been given. No one at all is without excuse. General revelation is sufficient to hold men accountable for their suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bob, you said this: “I do not believe I am the seed of Abraham. I believe I am an adopted son with all legal rights and inheritance of a legitimate son. I believe Paul was speaking to Jews.”

And Scripture says, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal3:27-29).

A red flag goes up for me when I see such obvious deviation from Scripture! Paul is really unequivocal when he says that both Jews and Gentiles in Christ are the seed of Abraham. In the province of Galatia were both Jew and Gentile believers, and he addressed both and included both in these verses. This is not an issue between credos and paedos.

------

You then say, “I would interpret the ‘baptized into Christ’ as a reference made referring to purification. Just as baptism by water was a form of ritual purification for the Jew, so being baptized in Christ, the Living Water, is a purification. 

“There were many who observed the practice of circumcision besides the descendants of Abraham (Babylonians, Egyptians, etc) but they were not considered part of the nation of Israel by virtue of circumcision.”

I do not think your view in the first paragraph is held by Protestant Christians, whether credo or paedo. God purifies our hearts by faith (Acts 15:19) in the atoning work of Christ, not by any sort of ritual cleansing. There is a doctrine of baptism in the church which is substantially agreed upon by all Reformed camps – and I would add, all sound Protestant churches – even if we disagree on mode and subjects.

Going out of the community of God’s redeemed people, and seeking light on a crucial Old Covenant ordinance from Egyptian or Babylonian sources cannot but engender confusion. These ungodly pagans and their practices lend nothing to understanding the things of God.

With regard to the “legal transaction” – Baptism is the sign and the seal of inclusion into Christ and His body, keeping in mind that this ordinance given by command of Christ is an outward signifier of an inward reality: the substance of it the sealing of the soul by the Holy Spirit into the care of God, uniting him with Christ in death and resurrection, and joining him to the body of Christ (Eph 1:13; 2 Cor 1:22; Rom 6:3-5; 1 Cor 12:13). The legal transaction also pertains to the formal adoption of believers into the family and household of God.

The substance of the seal – outwardly marked by the sign – was ratified by the blood of the High Priest. In the OT the covenant was ratified by the blood of sacrificial animals.

It is “iron-clad”, this cutting of the covenant. None of them were “signed” the way we Westerners sign a last will and testament; the Covenant was cut with Abraham based on God’s promise, and His going through the cut animals (Gen 15); with Moses that covenant was ratified with the blood of animals (Heb 9:18-20; Exod 24:4-8); with Christ His covenant was ratified by His own blood (Luke 22:20).

I already said to you (earlier) that a person may be saved without baptism. I have pursued the issue of infant baptism because it bears so directly on the issue of sin in such little ones, and how God cleanses them (though there are aspects to this I cannot fathom).

You know, Bob, I am afraid I have been confusing you by going into such details of these issues, before you are even grounded in some basic doctrines of the faith. And now you are responding hastily to my remarks.

It may be better for us all to take a break, and for you to go about your normal Christian life, dropping matters pertaining to infant baptism – and baptism generally – as well the fate of dying infants, in lieu of other aspects of living out the Christian life. I would say talk with your pastor about these things, even though you have not been satisfied in earlier talks with him. And, as I know you already do, continue to study to show thyself approved. I would counsel you to steer clear of the Roman Catholic, High Anglican, and Orthodox churches, for their views will only give you more information, much of which is shot through with error (and I would add to these the pagan ritual practices), and find sound teachers, Baptist or Paedobaptist, whichever you lean to – of which there are many, and study them. You drink from polluted waters of the heathen you will fall ill.

We are Reformed – whether credo or paedo – because we find the Reformed confessions faithful formulations of Bible doctrines we hold (for the most part, at any rate). We have sought to give reasons for our faith, and for being part of the church communions we respectively belong to. We can respect your seeking to find what is true before committing to anything.

We have thought through what we believe, and try (not always well) to communicate it. We are sorry if it has gotten to wrangling. Sometimes we all can overdo a good thing. It has been stimulating discussing these things with you!


----------



## Bob Carlberg

Thank you to all who are responding to my somewhat incoherent rantings. It is difficult to address each response thoughtfully and in retrospect I believe I spoke hastily and in error to the question of being Abraham's seed. What I should have said is I do believe* in Christ *I am Abraham's seed and there is no difference between Jew and Gentile when speaking collectively of the church. My response was poorly stated and I did not speak in context. My intent was to say that in a literal sense it is not possible for me to be Abraham's seed unless I am a Jew even if I be circumcised. This probably still makes no sense so let me try once again more carefully.

It is not possible to become a Jew (a member of the chosen people) by being circumcised. One who was not a blood descendant of Abraham could only be adopted into the household of Abraham. Although circumcision was a sign that you were Abraham's seed the action of baptism itself was not what made you as such. Does this make more sense.

Therefore in allegorical terms, being baptized, if it is allegorically like unto circumcision, it cannot make you Abraham's seed or more correctly a part of the Church. It is a sign of association. 

Following this line of thought, there were those outside the lineage of Abraham who chose to become "God fearers" or a members of the community. They had to renounce their heathen idols and beliefs in them (a spiritual circumcision of the heart) and subject themselves to fleshly circumcision (a literal circumcision of the flesh) as an outward sign of their commitment in order to be adopted into the community. Some did this and enjoyed the same protection that God afforded his chosen.

Likewise today, if we renounce our sinful ways, our heathen idols and beliefs, and believe solely in the work of Christ, through faith, we will then willingly subject ourselves to the symbol of baptism as an outward sign of the inward change that has taken place. We are then associated with the Church and "in Christ" are members of the Church"


If we view baptism as an outward sign of an inward change, then it seems incongruous to perform it before that change takes place. Rom. 4:10


Over the weekend, I was listening to a message on the Passover. It got me thinking regarding Covenant theology. When the blood was placed on the doorway, it was this act of faith alone which saved the firstborn. It had nothing to do with the parents being under the Covenant or the circumcision of the child. In fact it was even open to the Egyptians who were not the seed of Abraham and were unlikely circumcised in Abrahamic tradition nor under the Covenant. They could still avail themselves of the same promise of salvation by faith in the shed blood. 


As to the equality of sins, it seems everyone who responds, inquires what I mean by sins are not equal. I do not know what that means, I am merely citing the confession. Please do not expect me to explain it. What do you all think it means? 

One could surmise that this means that Original Sin is not equal to Actual Sins but this is not explicitly stated.


There seems to be a general assumption that I believe some are not going to be held accountable for sin. This is not the case, I believe all are individually accountable for sin. But what is sin? This is core to the discussion. Does* our* guilt make us sinful or does *our* sin make us guilty? It does not matter because Christ took on all our guilt and all our sin and by our faith in him we are seen sinless and guiltless in the eyes of God.


Please explain federal holiness if I have not already done it above.

Is it correct exegesis to apply admonishment to adults equally to children?

Are children held to the same standards as adults or have they been given "less light" and therefore their "sin" will not be held equal to the sin of an understanding adult or enlightened one?

I think it is clear that the nation of Isreal will be judged with greater judgment than their gentile counterparts for having known the truth (Christ revealed in prophecy) and having rejected it (Christ revealed in his earthly person).


----------



## py3ak

Bob Carlberg said:


> Please explain federal holiness if I have not already done it above



You have not - I don't think anything you said touched on the concept. Federal holiness is the state of being included in the visible church, having a part in the external administration of the covenant of grace. Here is Fisher:



> Q. 37. How are children of professing parents designated in scripture?
> 
> A. If any one of the parents be a visible believer, or regular church-member, the children, on that account, are called holy, 1 Cor. 7:14 -- "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy."
> 
> Q. 38. What holiness is here meant?
> 
> A. Federal holiness, or being admitted to church membership, together with their believing or professing parent.
> 
> Q. 39. May not this holiness be understood of legitimacy, or being lawfully begotten?
> 
> A. No; because marriage being an ordinance of the law of nature, the children of married parents, though both of them be infidels, are as lawfully begotten as those of professing Christians.
> 
> Q. 40. How does federal holiness entitle an infant to baptism?
> 
> A. Federal holiness necessarily supposes a being within the covenant, in virtue of the credible profession of the parent; and, consequently, a right to the initiatory seal of it.



Flavel, in his reply to Cary's polemic, specifically distinguishes federal holiness from intrinsic holiness.


----------



## Scott1

Very helpful citations regarding "holiness," baptism, etc. Ruben, thanks!


----------

