# BF & M Clarity



## White Knight (May 5, 2010)

So, I was re-reading the Baptist Faith and Message and was curious about a portion in Ch3. When it states, "Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation," does this deny the doctrince of original sin? It states that as soon as they are capable, doesn't that assume that before they are able to, they arent transgressors? 

III. Man

Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.

Genesis 1:26-30; 2:5,7,18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalms 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isaiah 6:5; Jeremiah 17:5; Matthew 16:26; Acts 17:26-31; Romans 1:19-32; 3:10-18,23; 5:6,12,19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18,29; 1 Corinthians 1:21-31; 15:19,21-22; Ephesians 2:1-22; Colossians 1:21-22; 3:9-11.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 5, 2010)

Here is how the 1925 BF&M reads:
"Man was created by the special act of God, as recorded in Genesis. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Gen 1:27) "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Gen 2:7) He was created into a state of holiness under the law of his Maker, but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; *whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, and are under condemnation*, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors."

The later version quoted in the opening post indeed sounds watered down to me. The particular terminology of this section was altered and adopted in 1963.


----------



## White Knight (May 5, 2010)

Ok then, I'd like clarity regarding the last sentence, "and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors." What is this refering to?


----------



## toddpedlar (May 5, 2010)

To be the most charitable, I think what's going on there is a distinction between being transgressors under the covenant with Adam vs. actually transgressing the Law by their own volition. Each condemns, and all are actually accountable for both Adam's sin and their own... but they can be distinguished.

Now the removal of the word "actual" in the 1963 version surely was no mistake, and would tend to the position Joshua refers to - the nonsense of "age of accountability" as though those who die prior to that "age" are not transgressors and hence not deserving of eternal death.


----------



## White Knight (May 5, 2010)

Ok, I'll ask the question again, Does it deny the doctrine of orignal sin?


posted to late/ Without refrencing earlier confessions to explain what newer ones mean, can one hold to the doctrine of original sin and the newest BF&M?


----------



## toddpedlar (May 5, 2010)

White Knight said:


> Ok, I'll ask the question again, Does it deny the doctrine of orignal sin?
> 
> 
> posted to late/ Without refrencing earlier confessions to explain what newer ones mean, can one hold to the doctrine of original sin and the newest BF&M?


 
As far as this phrase goes, I would say it's hard to... if there really is the statement that prior to this 'age' one is not accountable as a transgressor, then that would seem to deny accountability for original sin. One could hold some form of a doctrine of original sin, something more like "hereditary propensity to sinfulness" rather than an orthodox doctrine which includes culpability and accountability for Adam's sin for each and every conceived human being. 

If I'm understanding the most recent BFM correctly, this phrasing seems to deny the culpability for Adam's sin... and so the short answer is "no". (but then there may be other places where the BFM addresses original corruption and culpability for all human beings - in which case the BFM would be self-contradictory in this place).


----------



## toddpedlar (May 5, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Yes, Todd, sorry, I forgot to clarify my position. Even with the "actual" in there, however, it's not true that such is what initially brings them under condemnation.


 
Meaning that the BFM says they aren't under condemnation until this "age", according to the BFM in general? If so, then the BFM flatly denies correct doctrine concerning original sin.


----------



## toddpedlar (May 5, 2010)

Joshua said:


> It seems to be saying such. When a "Therefore" is placed _after_ "his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin," then adds "as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.," it seems to be saying:
> 
> Adam sinned and made us all _inclined toward sin_, so when we're actually capable of moral action, we _will _sin, and, ergo, will _then _be under condemnation.



Right... seems to fail the test of Scripture quite directly here - and unless other passages in the BF&M, which I do not know well, address the fact that ALL humanity are guilty of sin and worthy of eternal death upon conception, then it flatly denies original sin, and is in grave error.


----------



## White Knight (May 5, 2010)

So, one cannot confess the LBCF and the BF&M? Correct? Unless one takes exception.


----------



## White Knight (May 12, 2010)

Ok, so I’ve been doing some more reading and I stumbled upon this. 

“In James 4:17, the Bible says, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” The Bible is clear that we are all born with a sin nature as a result of being in Adam (Roman 5:12). This is what is called the doctrine of original sin. However, the Scriptures make a distinction between original sin and actual sins. While all are guilty of original sin, moral responsibility and understanding is necessary for our being accountable for actual sins (Deuteronomy 1:30; Isaiah 7:16). It is to the one who knows to do right and does not do it that sin is reckoned. Infants are incapable of such decisions.”
Al Mohler

The little extract was taken from a sermon of his that was arguing for all infant salvation. This does however, shed some light on my question. Are you able to explain all infant salvation in another way without approaching it this way? I have the rest of Al Mohlers sermon here, I just think this is certainly a crux of it.

---------- Post added at 10:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 AM ----------

I don't want this to become an "are all infants saved debate". Can that view explain the questionable, at best, language of the confession concerning the doctrine of original sin?


----------



## White Knight (May 12, 2010)

Joshua said:


> First, and with utmost respect, Dr. Mohler cannot _prove_ that "_nfants are incapable of such decisions." He just can't know that. The bible says we are "by nature" children of wrath and under condemnation. There is nothing that indicates in Scripture all infants, dying in infancy, are elect. We can all agree that all elect infants will go to heaven and are saved by the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Original sin is enough to condemn us. In Adam's fall, we sinned all._


_

Agreed.

I'm still trying to understand why that sentence made it in the confession. The BF&M is supoosed to be general so as to not divide baptists, but that is a devisive statement. Still wondering if this explains why..._


----------

