Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by webmaster
"...asking Matt how it is that infants and mentally disabled may be seen as excused from the charge of Romans 1:19-20."
They are not excused from depravity, but I would wonder how they are blamed for not suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness without cognitively doing anything yet. That does not make them without excuse as to depravity, but I can't see how someone who is "not excusable" is not excusable from something they have yet to do?" The Apostle says "they" (wicked men) have done...xyz (the list he gives). Innately, I think total depravity demonstrates very clearly that they will be charged with every offense Adam committed (and he broke every commandment in the sin of the garden that was imputed to "all of us" even infants and the mentally disabled). But again, being without excuse in Romans 1 seems to not focus on the garden (that will be his progression to Romans 5). Rather, right now, he is attesting to the reality of men's fruit and their active oppression of the Gospel by wicked intentions and actions. God, in turn, gives them over to more of their own wickedness.
Originally posted by webmaster
Chris -
"Matt, if the general revelation spoken of in passages like Romans 1 cannot be said in any sense to apply to infants and the mentally disabled, how can such people be considered "unexcusable" as spoken of in WCF.I.I (since, as you said, we all of course agree they are depraved)? "
They are inexcusable in Adam. Then they grow up and are condemned and jugded for his imputed sin and then thier actual sin upon pain of death. Does that not make sense?
Originally posted by Paul manata
Matt, I deny your unsupported prmise that general Revelation is mediate.
The wrath is revealed against *all* ungodliness. Do you assume all infants are Godly? This then ties into the knowledge and supression.
Originally posted by turmeric
Romans 9 may have the answer. Jacob & Esau having done nothing either good or bad, God hated one & loved the other. Both were born in sin and deserved nothing from God but wrath.
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by webmaster
"...asking Matt how it is that infants and mentally disabled may be seen as excused from the charge of Romans 1:19-20."
They are not excused from depravity, but I would wonder how they are blamed for not suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness without cognitively doing anything yet. That does not make them without excuse as to depravity, but I can't see how someone who is "not excusable" is not excusable from something they have yet to do?" The Apostle says "they" (wicked men) have done...xyz (the list he gives). Innately, I think total depravity demonstrates very clearly that they will be charged with every offense Adam committed (and he broke every commandment in the sin of the garden that was imputed to "all of us" even infants and the mentally disabled). But again, being without excuse in Romans 1 seems to not focus on the garden (that will be his progression to Romans 5). Rather, right now, he is attesting to the reality of men's fruit and their active oppression of the Gospel by wicked intentions and actions. God, in turn, gives them over to more of their own wickedness.
I see Psalm 58:3 as very relevant to this issue: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies." How would you interpret that? Augustine, in City of God, described the cognitive nature of infants' depravity and unexcusability by appealing to examples such as selfishness and greed being some of the earliest observable sins of infants, such as wanting to take the food and drink themselves rather than leaving it for the other infant next to them. While they of course do not realize the full implications of their actions, they nonetheless reveal the presence of cognitive greed and selfishness in their hearts and minds. And I see that perspective as supported by Psalm 58:3.
Originally posted by webmaster
Chris -
"Matt, if the general revelation spoken of in passages like Romans 1 cannot be said in any sense to apply to infants and the mentally disabled, how can such people be considered "unexcusable" as spoken of in WCF.I.I (since, as you said, we all of course agree they are depraved)? "
They are inexcusable in Adam. Then they grow up and are condemned and jugded for his imputed sin and then thier actual sin upon pain of death. Does that not make sense?
I understand and fully agree that imputed sin in Adam is wholly sufficient to render all persons unexcusable (and it is indeed that imputed sin of an a priori nature that is spoken of in Psalm 51:5, "in sin did my mother conceive me"). What I am also saying, however, is that it seems that cognitive sin is likewise presented by Scripture as being an immediate and universal fruit of that imputed sin, thus necessarily including all infants in every state. In addition to seeing support for that view in Psalm 58:3, I also see confessional corroboration for it in the fact that the Westminster divines felt comfortable listing "the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence" as all being things that render men unexcusable, without reservation or elaboration.
Originally posted by webmaster
Again, round and round, show me how infants do that.
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by webmaster
Again, round and round, show me how infants do that.
They can commit sin with the possession of greed and impatience. Getting upset when mom doesn't bring the bottle right away! Or even something like a disregard for those around them shortly after they are born in the hospital, scratching or biting someone around them because it is their instinct and gives them comfort. Augustine gave examples such as that in City of God to illustrate the existence of cognitive sin on the part of infants. Do they understand the implications of their thoughts and actions as fully as we do? No, but they don't need to in order to render them willingly sinful nonetheless - just as we do not have to either, in fact. I can have an essentially instant reaction of envy or resentment to something someone says without even thinking about it first - but that does not mean that I haven't sinned in that reaction, even though it was instantaneous and without pre-meditated thought. And that is because it is still a real, voluntary act I committed, and it reveals what was in my heart that was sinful. So it is with the mental, nearly instantaneous selfish thoughts and actions of infants.
Just for clarification, I don't see this philosophical illustration as necessary to prove the existence of cognitive sin on the part of infants, since exegesis is sufficient to show that biblical. But since you asked for a "how" answer, I thought it might help clarify how it can be thought about conceptually.
Originally posted by webmaster
Infants are subject, obviously, to sense experience. If they get slapped they cry. OK.
I'm looking for the "How do they speak lies," literally. What do they do in "speaking" lies. Is that not metaphorical at least in the application? They have ALL the qualities of speaking lies in thier depraved wicked hearts. Practically, how do they look at creation, supress the truth (because its plain to them) and then go off fornicating, or partaking in sexual immorality (Romans 1). There is a differecne between the anlogical expressions given on subjects like these (knowing that n infants cannot SPEAK at all) and the meaning behind the verse. We know God has feathers. Why? Becuase Patrick says its anthropological? No, because of exegesis. So what about infants that SPEAK? Metaphorical or not?
Originally posted by webmaster
Help me: how do infants, in any language, suppress the truth in unrighteousness? Remember, this is a positive action according to the Apostle. As a result of this positive action, and its continued suppression, God "gives them over" to thier sin.
Okay, just so we're clear, since you said that you can only know God with logic are you now recanting?
I think this will make this my 39th time discussing this worn-out Nashian critique.
Originally posted by Paul manata
Jeff,
I think everyone agrees with saying it is okay to say that God is logic. The point is in how you define it and what you eman by it.
Where did I disagree? If you're talking about knowledge of an object then it is the same for us in the same sense. If your talking about knowing as then it's not in the same sense since God knows as Creator and I know as creature. So, a bit of precision would help, otherwise we end up talking past each other
Originally posted by Paul manata
Jeff,
I think everyone agrees with saying it is okay to say that God is logic. The point is in how you define it and what you eman by it.
Originally posted by JohnV
Originally posted by Paul manata
Jeff,
I think everyone agrees with saying it is okay to say that God is logic. The point is in how you define it and what you eman by it.
I don't agree with it.