One more in the series of answers for Dan, this one picks up on Oct. 17, 2014 and hopefully will get through the current discussion thread as of Oct. 29, 2014.
1. "What do you think it is a literal term for?" Actually, it is an English translation of the Greek work “Theopneustos” which is more literally translated “given by inspiration of God,”. So, if it is a metaphor, then it’s a metaphor for “given by inspiration of God”.
2. "But by all means, demonstrate using your intense knowledge of babies what they are guilty of? Shitting their diaper?" I would agree with the historic Christian doctrine of Original Sin which suggests that all of humanity is born with a sin nature and that "all have sinned" means what it says.
3. "But “wow,” what? You find it somehow amazing that people have this CRAZZZZZZZZY notion that babies are, by definition, innocent and have not committed a sin? That IS NUTSO, eh? This questions misrepresents my position, and therefore is not worth any further attention.
4. "Can you admit your error there?" No, because I cut/pasted your actual words and responded to your declaration.
5. "Can you admit your error here?" Again, I have not made an error here to admit.
6. "Or are you having a problem with reality?" You seem to be suggesting that your hunch is equal to reality, how can this be? can you demonstrate that your hunch is in fact reality?
7. "Understand the error now?" Obviously I've dealt with this already, but by including it I hope to make the point that virtually no questions have been ignored.
8. "Who says I need God’s definition of innocence to communicate an idea in English?" Since the idea you seem to be trying to communicative is that God considers babies innocent, it would only make sense that you understand what God considers innocent. Further, you have not established the fact that God is somehow bound by any English language definition.
9. "So, why would you or I not use English words with their given definitions to communicate in English? What are you suggesting I/we do?" If your point is only that you, using an English definition of innocent. opine that babies are innocent in your eyes there is no problem. Where the problem lies is that were talking about how God views babies and there sin. Once you cross that line, then you have to provide something to underpin your hunch. You haven't.
10. "Am I mistaken?" Not in your mind.
11. "What is it you want me to “prove…”? That MW defines words as I’ve cited?" No, I would like to to demonstrate that your hunch is anything more than your hunch. You are suggesting that it is an objective fact that babies are innocent in the eyes of god, so demonstrate that your assertion is something other than your personal opinion.
12. "I suspect that you all just want to bully people into accepting whatever definition you humans are assigning to these words as being equal to “fact” and/or “god’s word…” but why would we do that?" This appears to be rhetorical, so I'm treating it as such.
13. "On. What. Basis?" On.The.Basis.That.You.Should.Defend.Claims.You.Have.Made.
14. "What claim do you think I made?" That babies are factually, objectively, 100% innocent and free from all sin from God's perspective.
15. "By what authority do I say that a baby is innocent as defined in the dictionary?" OK you can read the dictionary, so what does a 2014 dictionary definition have to do with God commanding the Israelites to engage in certain actions? Again, we're talking about what God thinks, not the dictionary.
16. "Innocent means what it means. What the hell are you asking?" How many times must I repeat myself?
17. "Look, do you even recognize how crazy it sounds to say (if you are saying it) that babies are guilty of some crime/misdeed? They have not done anything but be born, poop and eat… what could they possibly have done? Are you suggesting that pooping is a crime/misdeed?? What have they done?" Why must I answer these things over and over?
18. "Do you not recognize how insane that sounds?" I realize that it sounds insane to you that i might think that God has a different way to look at guilt or innocence than you do. But how things sound to you isn't really the point, is it? Do you realize how insane it sounds for to to demand that God be limited to a dictionary definition that you've cherry picked to try to bolster your hunch?
19. "Do you disagree that, just rationally, it would be insane to punish someone for something they did not do?" I think it's insane to try to limit the criteria that God might or might not use for judgement based on your definition of fair.
20. "Do you have a different guess?" I'll go with the historic doctrine of Original Sin, as well as the scriptural support you ignored earlier.
21. "Do you think God holds babies accountable as “sinners” for doing nothing/making no conscious decision to do wrong?" Asked and answered.
22. "Do you speak for God when you make your guesses?" No, I believe that the Bible speaks clearly enough on many things that to accept Biblical teaching is tantamount to God speaking for Himself.
23. "Are your guesses equivalent to facts?" No.
24. "If so, on what basis would we grant that belief any credibility?" After you refute the Biblical/historical case I made at John's then we can discuss this. As long as you ignore things, I see no reason for mindless repetition.
25. "By what authority are you not understanding what I said?" I do understand what you said, I'm taking your words at face value.
26. "By what rationality are you dodging reasonable questions?" I've answered well over a hundred of your direct questions, while you haven't reciprocated. You continuing to make this accusation after being corrected is simply continuing to lie.
27. "Do you disagree? If so, what wrong has a 1 day old child committed?" Asked and answered.
28. "On what basis would you make such a crazy claim?" I haven't made the claim, you keep insisting I have. It seems crazy to keep insisting that I have made a claim I haven't made.
29. "And do you not realize how detached from reality this line of grilling is on your part?" I was unaware that you have been deputized to define reality. It seems that insisting that I have made a claim that I have clearly not made, ignoring my explanations of why you are wrong, then repeating the wrong claim is truly divorced from reality.
30. "Who says that God is the only judge of ultimate innocence or guilt?" I'd start with the Bible. Do you have another option"
31. "Who says God has a “standard” by which he judges innocence and guilt?" One would presume that a judge would have a standard that is used to make judgements.
32. "And regardless, what does that have to do with what I’ve said?" You keep insisting that babies are innocent, and that God (by ordering the killing of entire populations) wouldn't order the killing of innocents. For your hunch to be true, you must demonstrate that the babies in question as innocent in according to God's standard. Failure to do so, renders your entire hunch unsupported guesswork.
33. "So, in your opinion, God IS the only judge of guilt or innocence?" Who else would you suggest? I'd suggest that there is ample Biblical evidence to support the contention that God is the ultimate judge. Of course, if you deny this, it screws up your beloved Matthew 25 interpretation.
34. "Is your opinion on this matter equal to fact, or is it just your opinion?" I never said it was.
35. "On what basis would you presume to say your opinion is fact?" Since I didn't make the claim, I see no reason to defend a claim I didn't make.
36. "What is the support for such a claim?" Already provided
37. "Has God told you this?' In so far as the Bible is "the Word of God", the answer is yes.
38. "On What Basis?" Why don't you provide some basis for your hunches and stop asking this stupid question.
39. "John, Craig, Marshall: Are newborn babes guilty of something? Of what?What did they do? Demonstrate, please with some hard data.On what basis would you claim that babies are guilty of something? Where is your support? Do you not recognize how crazy that sounds, how detached from reality?" Asked and answered.
As I went through and did some formatting I was struck by the fact that Dan is still asking the same questions today that he was when this was put together. I was also struck by the fact that in this post alone (not to mention the others from the same time) I sought out and answered 39 questions from a series of posts in an effort to demonstrate the falseness of Dan's "No one even answers my questions." claims. I'll leave decisions of his veracity to others ("I answer 95% of the questions asked of me."), but I decided since I did the work on this post I should go ahead and put it out.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
I just found this in my draft folder. It's a post from way back when. It's one of the posts where I went through multiple questions from Dan and answered all of them in one place. I realize it's out of context, but I did all the work and figured that one more example of answering questions is always a good healthy thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
169 comments:
If I had asked, "What is your view of historic Christian doctrine of Original Sin which suggests that all of humanity is born with a sin nature...?" Your answer (repeated or alluded to many times) would have been an answer to that question.
THAT is not the question I asked.
The questions I asked were simple and straightforward:
Do you think newborn babies have committed some sin... a sin(s) so atrocious as to justify an eternity of torture?
If so, what do you think that sin is (and do you have any support for that claim)?
So, your big long list of "answers" are not, for the most part, answers to the questions that were being asked, but to some other question that you chose to answer instead.
Do you understand that?
And, just by way of giving you another chance: Are you saying that your answer is that newborns are born with a "sinful nature" and that being born with that sinful nature is justification for an eternity of torture?
Not that I expect you to answer this time any more than you have in the past, or to even understand that you are not answering the questions that are asked of you, but just by way of clarification.
"Do you understand that?"
You asked the questions you asked, I answered them it's that simple. Unfortunately the chance of you doing the same is precisely zero.
"And, just by way of giving you another chance: Are you saying that your answer is that newborns are born with a "sinful nature" and that being born with that sinful nature is justification for an eternity of torture?"
No. Never said it was. But that won't stop you from making assumptions.
"Not that I expect you to answer this time any more than you have in the past,..."
You've got chutzpa I'll give you that. Literally hundreds of your questions answered and you have the gall to trot this load of crap out. But hey feel free to answer even a fraction of my questions. You won't but feel free.
Craig, anyone can look at your responses and see that you did not answer the questions asked. Is it the case that you simply can't see it?
I asked...
"And, just by way of giving you another chance: Are you saying that your answer is that newborns are born with a "sinful nature" and that being born with that sinful nature is justification for an eternity of torture?"
You responded...
No. Never said it was. But that won't stop you from making assumptions.
Is that, "No, I don't think newborns are born with a sinful nature..."? or
"No, being born with a sinful nature is justification for an eternity of torture?"
I would guess the latter, since you said Scripture "suggests that all of humanity is born with a sin nature..."
If the latter, at least that's an answer to that question. You do not think that being born with a sin nature is justification for an eternity in hell. Is that right?
If so, then what has a baby done to justify an eternity in hell?
That is the question being asked of you.
That is no. I do not think that a newborn is destined for an "eternity of torture" because of his/her sin nature.
"If the latter, at least that's an answer to that question. You do not think that being born with a sin nature is justification for an eternity in hell. Is that right?"
No. Again, I've never suggested that it is. For many people that would be a clue to my position, but not for you.
"If so, then what has a baby done to justify an eternity in hell?"
I've never suggested that an eternity in Hell is the automatic destination for a baby. for some reason, despite having had this very conversation previously, you continue to
make up what you assume my position is, as opposed to dealing with my actual position.
"That is the question being asked of you."
Which I've answered. But, please, keep asking it over and over and over and over and over if it somehow helps.
I have to not how interesting it is that you seem to think that "I asked..." somehow demands that I answer your question. Even to the extent of answering it multiple times and your refusal to accept the answers I give as not good enough for you. Yet somehow, you don't feel that you have the same obligation when others ask questions.
I don't say this in order to even attempt to get you to answer questions, your track record speaks for itself and you clearly have no motivation to do anything differently. I do say this to point out how differently we react to the implied obligation involved in having a conversation. Or the difference between how we view our ethical responsibilities to do what we say we will do. I'm not making a value judgement necessarily, just noting the differences.
OK, thanks for answering to clarify that much. Does that mean you think that infants who die go to heaven because they are sinless and have literally done nothing to be punished for?
"Does that mean you think that infants who die go to heaven because they are sinless and have literally done nothing to be punished for?"
No.
I believe that you are once again asking questions in such a way as to display your assumptions about my positions which stems from your preconceptions.
I ask questions not to display my assumptions but to find out the answers. The thing is, I do not know what you think exactly about babies and sin (because you have given answers that have not been clear to me or did not directly answer questions asked) and so I ask clarifying questions. What is odd about that?
So, you do NOT think that newborns commit sinful acts.
You DO think that they are sinless in that regards.
You do NOT think that being born with a sinful nature is justification for hell.
You do NOT think that newborns who die get to heaven because they have no sin.
This is what I have gathered from your answers thus far, is that correct?
If newborns who die do not go to heaven because they are sinless, why do they go to heaven?
"I ask questions not to display my assumptions but to find out the answers."
Yet, the way you choose to word your questions makes me question this.
"This is what I have gathered from your answers thus far, is that correct?"
No.
"If newborns who die do not go to heaven because they are sinless, why do they go to heaven?"
Because God has mercy on whom He chooses to have mercy.
But why is there a need for mercy in the case of a dead infant? How are you defining mercy here?
Do you know that many conservatives say we need mercy because we're sinners, but a newborn hasn't sinned, right?
And you say no, I'm not correct in my summation. What did I misunderstand?
"But why is there a need for mercy in the case of a dead infant?"
Everyone needs mercy.
"How are you defining mercy here?"
Kind or forgiving treatment of someone who could be treated harshly.
"Do you know that many conservatives say we need mercy because we're sinners, but a newborn hasn't sinned, right?"
Why should I care about your characterization of what "many conservatives" say?
"And you say no, I'm not correct in my summation. What did I misunderstand?"
All 4 of your conclusions are not accurate reflections of what I believe.
Sigh. So you DO think newborns commit sinful acts?
"So you DO think newborns commit sinful acts?"
No.
They don't sin? They do sin? You said I've been mistaken on both points... So what is your position on newborn and sin? What is the other option, Craig?
The other option is that your binary assumption is the only possible option. In much the same way that you assumed (and based your earlier questions on your assumption) that my position was that "all babies who die get tortured for eternity in hell", you now assume that sin is only an action and not a condition.
So, again, what is the other option?
And as often is the case, you are factually mistaken about my assumptions.
The other option is that sin is a condition not an action.
No, I'm not.
1. You assume that sin is an action.
2. You assume that I was suggesting that infants who die be tortured in hell for eternity.
Two assumptions, two wrong assumptions.
1. I assume nothing. One definition of sin is, in fact, to commit an offense.
2. I therefore asked you, do babies commit offense/sin? Your response has not been clear to the actual question I asked.
So, Do you think newborns sin, given this common (English and biblical) definition?
3. Now, if you want to talk about this OTHER question - do infants have "the condition" of sin, by all means, answer that other question... Do they?
(I will note that this gets back to you not answering the question that was asked of you. I would find it hard to believe that you did not understand the question, that when I asked "do babies sin?"... that you did not understand my intent... "do babies commit offense?")
As to your second suggested assumption, again you are incorrect. I assume the opposite of what you think I assume. Perhaps you should not assume?
I would think that you know this but in the Bible there are two words used to talk about sin. The first is an action. The act of transgressing, of violating rules or laws. It is an action just as I described and just as my question was predicated upon. I would assume that you are biblically astute enough to be aware of this definition.
The second definition is to miss the mark or to fall short of. Just in case you didn't know.
1. Then you assume that your one definition is the primary one or excludes all others.
2. Yet I've answered this multiple times. Newborns (I love how you interchange different words so as to avoid specificity about what ages you are actually are referring to) do not commit offenses. Never said they did.
3. Yes, all are born with a nature of sin.
You asked a question, I answered it. Now you're going to start making assumptions about what I understand or don't understand.
I try not to assume, I do take your words at their meaning however.
I am aware of the different "definitions" of sin. That doesn't mitigate your assumptions about newborns and their sin nature.
What I think you are missing is that I am simply tired of answering your questions with lengthy involved explanations and having those ignored or misrepresented. I will still answer your questions as my integrity compels me to do so, however I will primarily be answering as directly and succinctly as I possibly can.
okay so infants do not commit acts of sin.
Further, while infants have a sin nature or sin condition, this condition in and of itself does not justify an eternity of torture for punishment.
is this your position?
So, presumably newborns do not need Jesus' blood to save them. Is this what you're saying? (since they have committed no sin acts that need forgiveness and thus, Jesus blood to cover their sin acts.)
Or do you still hold that even with no sin acts, that newborn infants still need Jesus blood for salvation? If so, why?
I don't believe Scripture insists that Christ's blood deals exclusively with sin "acts" as much as for the sin nature we inherited from Adam.
Dan engages here in speculation with regards to the specifics of how any given individual is saved. I agree with Craig that in general, all are deserving of death simply for being born, as we are all tainted by Adam's sin. For the most part, our acceptance of Christ as Savior enables us to come to God. But this does not mean that we can state categorically that every unborn or newborn child that dies without consciously accepting Christ will be denied Heaven. We simply don't have such detail given us, but only the general "rule of thumb" regarding such matters.
I do not hold that I need to believe that God will save all, regardless of whether or not He is capable or willing or likely. I do not hold that despite Scriptural teaching that God does not want that any should perish, that all will not. I do not hold that what human beings wish to determine indicates innocence or guilt is the same standard by which God does or will hold us accountable.
God is no more or less just and loving simply because He does not accept into His eternal presence everyone WE think He should. No mother believes her child is unworthy, regardless of how much a scumbag her child proved him/herself to be (John Wayne Gacy, Adolph Hitler, Al Capone, etc). Nor does everyone we cannot help but regard as a scumbag will be denied if such a person has a sincere death bed conversion. Talk about above one's paygrade!!
It's enough for me to know that Scripture teaches that all are deserving and that Christ is the only road to salvation. What happens to infants and the unborn I leave to God, trusting that He will do what is right and just in HIS eyes, not mine.
Marshall, re Christ's blood and sin nature... I believe Craig and I agree that with newborns and their sin nature, that nature does not condemn them. Agree?
If so, why do they need Jesus' blood for forgiveness?
"is this your position?"
No it is not.
"So, presumably newborns do not need Jesus' blood to save them. Is this what you're saying?"
No it's not.
"Or do you still hold that even with no sin acts, that newborn infants still need Jesus blood for salvation?"
The only avenue of salvation that I am aware of is through the death and resurrection of Jesus.
"If so, why?"
Why is Jesus the only way to salvation. That's above my pay grade. I'm just going with scripture on that one.
" I believe Craig and I agree that with newborns and their sin nature, that nature does not condemn them."
Then you assume incorrectly.
So, you hold a hunch that newborns - who according to you do not commit sins and whose "sin nature" does not condemn them - somehow specifically need Jesus' blood to save them, but you can't say why, is that it?
If so, perhaps you can see why this human theory is rationally (and biblically, since the Bible never insists that infants need Jesus' blood to save them) problematic?
I said...
"I believe Craig and I agree that with newborns and their sin nature, that nature does not condemn them."
You responded...
Then you assume incorrectly.
So, their sin nature DOES condemn them? But earlier, I asked...
"If the latter, at least that's an answer to that question. You do not think that being born with a sin nature is justification for an eternity in hell. Is that right?"
You responded...
No. Again, I've never suggested that it is. For many people that would be a clue to my position, but not for you.
So, merely having a sin nature is NOT justification for sending folk to hell, but when I say that "that sin nature does not condemn them..." I'm mistaken what you've said.
Perhaps you can understand how you sound like you keep changing what you're saying.
Care to clarify? Which is it? Does merely having a sin nature in and of itself YES condemn us to hell or NO, does not condemn us to hell?
"So, you hold a hunch that newborns - who according to you do not commit sins and whose "sin nature" does not condemn them - somehow specifically need Jesus' blood to save them, but you can't say why, is that it?"
No.
"If so, perhaps you can see why this human theory is rationally (and biblically, since the Bible never insists that infants need Jesus' blood to save them) problematic?"
Really. It's unbiblical that Jesus is the only means of salvation?
"Care to clarify?"
No I really don't care to do so again, but I will answer.
"Which is it?"
Which is what?
"Does merely having a sin nature in and of itself YES condemn us to hell or NO, does not condemn us to hell?"
Neither.
I'd love to be able to ask some clarifying questions so that I could better understand where you are confused, but since you haven't answered any this far, I won't even bother.
I'm confused because you give self-contradicting answers, Craig. If you can't tell how "Merely having a sin nature does not condemn us" is false AND "merely having a sin nature DOES condemn us" is false. What does that leave?
What do you think condemns us? A whim of a capricious god?
Come on, you are not this bad at communicating. Try to make some sense, man. Make your case, I'm giving you every opportunity and you're opting out. That's on you.
And by all means, ask a question if you think it will help. I guarantee I can answer more clearly and directly than you are.
Or we could try it this way, systematically winnowing down what it is you do and don't believe:
1. Do you believe that humans sin (commit wrong acts that are offensive to God)?
2. Do you believe that these human acts of sin separate us from God and, failing anything else happening, would condemn us to hell for an eternity?
3. Do you believe that even ONE act of sin would separate us from God and lead to hell?
4. OR, is it the case that you do not think that sin-acts (one or a million) are what separate us from God?
5. If so, what IS it that separates us from God?
6. OR, do you think that we are not separated from God, as a rule?
7. Do you think we all have a sin nature/a sinful condition (I'm sure you do, since you have said so, so I'll assume the answer is yes) and that this nature, in and of itself - even if we never actually acted upon it - separates us from God and would lead us to hell?
another clarifying question...
Paul says that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. Many evangelicals would say that all have sinned indicates the ALL people do sinful actions... And yet it appears you and I agree that infants do not do sinful actions. that is, it does not appear that you believe all have committed sinful acts, since infants have not. is that correct?
if so, what do you think Paul means when he says all have sinned?
"Many evangelicals would say that all have sinned indicates the ALL people do sinful actions..."
Like who?
From my reading of Scripture, "all" means everyone. Doesn't say, "all" except those under a certain age.
I also do not think that eternal separation from God does not necessarily mean "eternal torture"...whatever that means to you.
If our good deeds are like rags to God, why would only our bad deeds keep us separated? "Works" works both ways, it would seem to me.
Like who? Well, apparently, like you. Do you believe that newborns commit acts of sin?
As to eternal torture, I'm speaking of the evangelical idea of hell. Eternal torment. However you want to define it, it sounds unpleasant. Agreed?
As to your question about deeds, in my opinion, you are taking imagery and hyperbole literally. Obviously, acts of love and grace are good things, NOT bad. I don't think it is reasonable to suggest acts of love separate us from God.
"I'm confused because you give self-contradicting answers, Craig. If you can't tell how "Merely having a sin nature does not condemn us" is false AND "merely having a sin nature DOES condemn us" is false."
The problem you have is that you are looking at this as an arbitrary binary choice.
When you use the term condemn, exactly what do your mean by that?
"I guarantee I can answer more clearly and directly than you are."
You haven't so far, but I guess nothing is impossible.
"What does that leave?"
That depends on how you are using the term condemn.
"What do you think condemns us?"
God's judgement condemns us.
"A whim of a capricious god?"
No.
"Come on, you are not this bad at communicating. Try to make some sense, man. Make your case, I'm giving you every opportunity and you're opting out. That's on you."
Then you haven't read my responses. I specifically addressed this and why I am choosing not to give more than simple direct answers.
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes and no
5. Our fallen sinful nature (and the sin that results from it) separates us from God.
6. As a rule our inborn nature is separate from/hostile to God.
7. Asked and answered.
"And yet it appears you and I agree that infants do not do sinful actions. that is, it does not appear that you believe all have committed sinful acts, since infants have not. is that correct?"
How about you pick one term (infant, newborn, child, etc.) define what you mean by it and stick with it.
"if so, what do you think Paul means when he says all have sinned?"
That everyone is free from sin.
Gill's exposition of the entire Bible puts it like this.
For all have sinned,.... This is the general character of all mankind; all have sinned in Adam, are guilty by his sin, polluted with it, and condemned for it; all are sinners in themselves, and by their own actual transgressions; this is the case of the whole world, and of all the men in it; not only of the Gentiles, but of the Jews, and the more righteous among them: hence there is no difference in the state and condition of men by nature; nor is there any reason from and in themselves, why God saves one and not another; nor any room to despair of the grace and righteousness of Christ, on account of persons being, in their own view, the worst of sinners:
and hence it is, that they are all
come short of the glory of God; either of glorifying of God; man was made for this purpose, and was capable of it, though now through sin incapable; and it is only by the grace of God that he is enabled to do it: or of glorying: before him; sin has made him infamous, and is his shame; by it he has forfeited all external favours, and has nothing of his own to glory in; his moral righteousness is no foundation for boasting, especially before God: or of having glory from God; the most pure and perfect creature does not of itself deserve any glory and praise from God; good men, in a way of grace, will have praise of God; but sinners can never expect any on their own account: or of the glorious grace of God, as sanctifying and pardoning grace, and particularly the grace of a justifying righteousness; man has no righteousness, nor can he work out one; nor will his own avail, he wants a better than that: or of eternal glory; which may be called the glory of God, because it is of his preparing, what he calls persons to by his grace, and which of his own free grace he bestows upon them, and will chiefly lie in the enjoyment of him; now this is represented sometimes as a prize, which is run for, and pressed after; but men, through sinning, come short of it, and must of themselves do so for ever: or rather of the image of God in man, who is called "the image and glory of God", 1 Corinthians 11:7, which consisted externally in government over the creatures; internally, in righteousness and holiness, in wisdom and knowledge, in the bias of his mind to that which is good, and in power to perform it; of all which he is come short, or deprived by sinning.
23. for all have sinned—Though men differ greatly in the nature and extent of their sinfulness, there is absolutely no difference between the best and the worst of men, in the fact that "all have sinned," and so underlie the wrath of God.
and come short of the glory—or "praise"
of God—that is, "have failed to earn His approbation"
All have sinned and come short.—Strictly, all sinned; the Apostle looking back upon an act done in past time under the old legal dispensation, without immediate reference to the present: he then goes on to say that the result of that act (as distinct from the act itself) continues on into the present. The result is that mankind, in a body, as he now sees them, and before they come within the range of the new Christian system, fall short of, miss, or fail to obtain, the glory of God.
This statement, “all have sinned,” is found in Romans 3:23 (“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”) and in the last clause of Romans 5:12 (“…because all sinned”). Basically, it means that we’re all lawbreakers, because sin is the violation of God’s law (1 John 3:40). Sinfulness is the general characteristic of all mankind; we are all guilty before God. We are sinners by nature and by our own acts of transgression.
But to clarify, the newborn (and just so you can have a specific age, let's say I'm speaking of an infant in her first day) is not a lawbreaker, in that she has literally broken no laws nor committed any sin acts. Are we in agreement on that?
But to clarify, the newborn (and just so you can have a specific age, let's say I'm speaking of an infant in her first day) is not a lawbreaker, in that she has literally broken no laws nor committed any sin acts. Are we in agreement on that?"
Sure.
Does that mean that as we go forward that you will use the term "newborn" (as you add one more term), and that the meaning of the term will remain "an infant in her first day" for the rest of the conversation?
Thanks so much for the prompt, clear and direct answers, I appreciate them.
Sure.
So, we agree...
1. Humans have a sinful nature. They are imperfect with a tendency to make wrong decisions.
2. That nonetheless, newborns, at least, do NOT commit sins.
3. Thus, Romans 3 notwithstanding, "all" do NOT sin, in the sense of committing sin acts. Newborns do not sin.
Are we agreed on that much?
"Are we agreed on that much?"
Sure, if you insist that we tale Romans 3 in an out of context vacuum, ignore the commentaries, and demand that the entire theology of sin be constructed on one verse interpreted in a wooden literal manner.
Again, you don't understand how much I appreciate the prompt, clear and direct answers you have given, it's a welcome addition.
So, if all do not sin... If newborns do not sin... Are they separated from God and in need of Jesus' blood for forgiveness of sin? How can they need forgiveness if they are guiltless?
Or do you think they ARE guilty of something... Just not sin acts?
Re... "Ignoring Romans 3..." Etc. Of course, I'm not ignoring it. I literally and specifically brought it up to deal with the biblical and reasonable problems evangelicals have with their take on sin and judgment. As we agree now, "all" do not sin. And merely having a sin nature does not warrant judgment/punishment. These realizations have biblical and rational repercussions, as I hope to demonstrate...
Sorry, "taking Romans 3 in an out of context vacuum..."
"So, if all do not sin... If newborns do not sin... Are they separated from God and in need of Jesus' blood for forgiveness of sin?"
We are all separated from God due to sin.
"How can they need forgiveness if they are guiltless?"
I never said they needed forgiveness.
"Or do you think they ARE guilty of something... Just not sin acts?"
Asked and answered.
"And merely having a sin nature does not warrant judgment/punishment."
Interesting that you equate judgement and punishment as being the same. Interesting that you presume that anyone is suggesting punishment for newborns.
"These realizations have biblical and rational repercussions, as I hope to demonstrate..."
I never said you were ignoring Romans 3 I said that you were taking it in a vacuum,out of the larger context, ignoring the commentaries I've provided, and using a wooden literal interpretation of it. But please feel free to once again argue against a point I did not make.
Please, by all means, demonstrate. I've hope for years that you would demonstrate your claims, I eagerly await your demonstration.
As you've done such an amazing and fantastic job of answering my questions in such a prompt, clear and direct manner I eagerly await a similar clear and direct demonstration.
It's an important subject because many in the church are really conflicted about these issues. All of us want to believe that babies are completely innocent - born without sin. Yet, the Bible doesn't really teach us that babies are innocent in that way.
In Psalm 51:5 we read,
"Behold, I was brought
forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother
conceived me."
Charles Ryrie points out that "it is not that the acts of giving birth or conceiving are in themselves sinful, but that from the moment of conception a person possesses a sinful nature" (Ryrie 1996, 877).
The book of Job reiterates this idea:
"What is man, that he
should be pure,
Or he who is born of a
woman, that he should
be righteous?"
(Job 15:14, NASB)
Another compelling verse declares without apology,
"The wicked are estranged
from the womb.
These who speak lies go
astray from birth."
(Psalm 58:3)
The Apostle Paul explains, "Therefore...sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Romans 5:12).
Genetic Sin Transference
Paul is not referring to the daily sins that we all commit. Rather, he is pointing out the generational sin that infected all men because of Adam's sin. I guess we could call it "genetic sin" or our tendency to sin due to a genetic "flaw."
Grudem notes,
...even before birth children have a guilty standing before God and a sinful nature that not only gives them a tendency to sin but also causes God to view them as 'sinners' (Ps. 51:5)" (Grudem 1994, 499).
Re, "we are all separated from God due to sin..."
How are guiltless/innocent separated from God? Because someone else sins?
The main Scripture to understand on this topic is Romans 5:12: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned”
Acts 17:26 “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” because we all come from the same original man we inherited his flawed makeup of nature. Sin entered the world through the first man and spread to all his offspring- this happened by Adam sinning. Death is a result of sin, it was the result of sin. It occurred two ways. First God told Adam the day you eat of it you will die, Adam was separated from the Lord he died spiritually and was severed in his relationship. Second- He died physically, which was a result of his nature change. Aging and death began on that day. Both were a result from his disobedience in eating the fruit of the tree. 1 Cor.15:56: “the sting of death is sin,..”
Romans 5:18-19 says, "through one man's trespass, judgment came to all men, for by one man's disobedience all were made sinners." We are all born with a built-in death warrant, which is our sin nature, because we have inherited this sin nature from Adam we are already born spiritually dead (separated from God) and die physically. 1 Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” Death came by Adam and the resurrection can only come to mankind by believing in Jesus Christ.
"How are guiltless/innocent separated from God? Because someone else sins?"
"Behold, I was brought
forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother
conceived me."
Ephesians 2:2 says that all people who are not in Christ are “sons of disobedience.” Ephesians 2:3 also establishes this, saying that we are all “by nature children of wrath.” If we are all “by nature children of wrath,” it can only be because we are all by nature sinners — for God does not direct His wrath towards those who are not guilty.
"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins..."
Either Paul is wrong in the above or we are born "alive" and "die" at some other point. Is Paul wrong? Are we born spiritually alive? Do we spiritually die at some point? When does that happen?
And on what rational and biblical bases Romans 5 the "main scripture" to understand? I'm not saying it is or isn't, just asking on what basis would you choose that one verse? Why not the verse that says we are created just a little lower than God?
Is Paul wrong? I don't think so. Is he writing using metaphor and imagery? I think clearly so.
I had asked...
"How are guiltless/innocent separated from God? Because someone else sins?"
And you responded with some bible verses and your interpretations/opinions about what they might mean, if taken in a fairly woodenly literal manner. And that's fine for you if that's what you believe. But assuming someone does not share your opinions, do you have something besides your opinions about some Bible verses to answer this question?
Let's assume a Loving and Just God, but not an assumption that others would agree with your opinions of some bible verses and their meanings. Given that assumption, how are the innocent separated from God?
Beyond that, your answer, given your opinions about some verses...
If we are all “by nature children of wrath,” it can only be because we are all by nature sinners — for God does not direct His wrath towards those who are not guilty.
But have we not already established that you and I agree that newborns are NOT guilty of any sin-act, of any wrongdoing? This is my question to you. GIVEN THAT newborns are not guilty of any wrongDOING (ie, they have done nothing wrong), why would God direct his wrath towards them? Or do you not think that is the case for newborns?
Thanks.
I've never made any claims' about 1 main scripture, I've pointed out several scriptures and commentaries, so to say that I've suggested that there is 1 main scripture is simply not accurate.
You claim Paul is using "metaphor and imagery", if this is the case then what does the metaphor/imagery mean.
"But assuming someone does not share your opinions, do you have something besides your opinions about some Bible verses to answer this question?"
If you dismiss scripture, why would you not dismiss anything else. Of course, even as you dismiss scripture you still haven't proven your case that newborns are 100% free from sin or human sin nature and are 100% guiltless. Once again, you dismiss what you want to dismiss, you don't provide support for your claims, yet you demand more support from me. Once you demonstrate why the scripture offered does not say what it clearly says and that everything I've offered is wrong, I might consider offering something else. But as ling as all you have is speculation without support I'll pass.
"Let's assume a Loving and Just God, but not an assumption that others would agree with your opinions of some bible verses and their meanings. Given that assumption, how are the innocent separated from God?"
Once again with the assumptions. By their human sin mature. In the same way that the living are separated from the dead to use Paul's example.
"But have we not already established that you and I agree that newborns are NOT guilty of any sin-act, of any wrongdoing?"
You've established that you hold that opinion, and I have said that I agree with your opinion.
"This is my question to you. GIVEN THAT newborns are not guilty of any wrongDOING (ie, they have done nothing wrong), why would God direct his wrath towards them?"
Actually, this is one of your many questions to me. It's certainly not the only one. Why would a perfectly holy God direct His wrath towards those who sin, maybe because He's God and we're sinners? The problem inherent in the assumption behind your question is that God treats people differently because of their age. Whereas I would suggest that a just God treats everyone with equal justice and tempers that Justice with mercy.
"Or do you not think that is the case for newborns?"
I agree with the multiple scriptural passages presented earlier, that we are all conceived and born with a nature that separates us from God. The difference between us (other than the fact that you haven't answered the couple of questions I've asked you) is that I don not see the need to force God into a box defined by what I can understand with my limited, flawed, finite human mind. I am comfortable trusting in God's nature that He is completely just as well as appropriately merciful. I don't have this need to subject God and His actions to my Reason. I'm content to acknowledge and live with the fact that there is a degree of mystery about the specifics of how God operates and content to trust Him within that.
Again, your prompt, clear, and direct answers have made understanding areas of confusion so much better and I appreciate your prompt, clear, and direct answers.
Re: "I've never made any claims about 1 main scripture..."
You said, and I quote, "The main scripture to understand on this topic is Romans 5:12..."
Perhaps you can understand, then, why I asked you why that is the main scripture to understand? Beyond the one scripture, all of your verses, why are they collectively the main ones to understand?
Why not "you have been created to do good works in me..." Or the one about us being created in God's presumably good image, a little lower than God...?
On what bases are your preferred verse the lens to view humanity through?
"You said, and I quote, "The main scripture to understand on this topic is Romans 5:12...""
Actually, I did not say that. That was a quote from one of the commentaries I quoted. I'm sure that your confusion about that is somehow due to a failure on my part for which I apologize and beg your forgiveness.
"Beyond the one scripture, all of your verses, why are they collectively the main ones to understand?"
Do you actually mean "Beyond the multiple scriptural references..."?
The obvious answer is that they are many of the passages of scripture that deal with this issue. I really wouldn't make sense to suggest that we look at passages of scripture that didn't deal with the issue at hand. Nor would it make sense to look outside of scripture for an answer.
"Why not "you have been created to do good works in me..." Or the one about us being created in God's presumably good image, a little lower than God...?"
Well, to start with, those verses are dealing with creation and the intent of creation before the fall.
"On what bases are your preferred verse the lens to view humanity through?"
Well, to start with, because they pretty much parallel what we see of humanity.
But that is just the point. We do not see sinning infants. we do not see infants who live from the Moon. not in the real world, there's no data to say that sort of claim. A point which you sometimes seem to agree with.
sorry for the typos living from the Moon. love it. trying to do this from my phone.
I know that you are done answering questions, and again, thank you for your prompt, direct, and clear answers to the few questions I have asked.
So while I won't burden you with additional questions, is it too much to hope for that you will be able to "demonstrate" your case at some point in the near future, or is it that you simply "hope to demonstrate" your case without really planning to do so.
If your hopes do come to fruition I would certainly like to see how you deal with the following implications of the position you appear to have. (I say appear to have because you haven't provided what you "hope" to provide, nor have you answered any of my clarifying questions.)
1. The implication is that "newborns" are saved through their own righteousness rather than through Christ.
2. The above essentially set's up a works righteousness salvation for "newborns" with a different salvation for everyone else.
3. The implication that there is a point where the "newborn" transitions from one mode of salvation to another making one wonder when is that point and what is the tipping point that changes.
4. The implication that the newborn exists in a 100% sinless condition for some period of time.
5. The implication that it is (at least in theory) possible for a newborn to live for a period of months, years, or decades while maintaining this condition of sinlessness.
6. The grammatical construction of Romans 3:23.
I am quite sure that at some point your hopes will be realized and that you will fully and completely deal with all of the weaknesses of the scriptural case as well as the weaknesses of your opinion in the very same direct and clear manner that you have answered the questions you have been asked. In the mean time, I will strive for patience and understanding as I continue to wait for your hoped for demonstration the proof of your hunches.
"But that is just the point. We do not see sinning infants."
But why is this the point. It's simply an arbitrary issue to get so hung up on. Or to be more correct, it's just YOUR point. I don't know anyone else who has as much of as issue with this as you do.
I will and am demonstrating my point, but to get there we have to get passed what appears to be waffling on your point on the question of newborn sinners. You agree with me that newborns do not commit sin acts. That is, they do not sin. They are not sinners because those who do not sin - who do not commit sin acts - are not sinners, not as the word is used in the English language.
I suspect that's where we are running into problems. You are willing to allow the obvious, that newborns do not commit sin acts, but you do not appear willing to admit that newborns do not sin. Those sentences are one in the same to me but I'm not sure if they are the same to you. You appear to think that even though newborns do not commit acts of sin that they are still guilty of something.
So maybe that's a good question... Do you think newborns are guilty and if so, what are they guilty of?
The "sinning infant" fallacy is a point because it's measurable, observable... It is ridiculous on the face of it, absurd to the point of undoing any demand for literal interpretations of the pertinent verses/passages. And that is important because some people insist on the literal as the only Christian option of these verses.
more later...
I really wouldn't make sense to suggest that we look at passages of scripture that didn't deal with the issue at hand.
And who gets to decide? I think the verses I mentioned (only one of which had to do with the Creation story) get to the heart of our nature in a very literal way. The verses you mention touch on aspects of human nature, but it isn't rational to take them literally, the internal logic does not hold up, which is all part of what I'm getting at.
What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
You make him to rule over the works of Your hands
~Psalm 8
God created man in God's own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply... " and it was so. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.
(As an aside, did you know of each day's creation, God said "It is good..." BUT, on the day God made humanity, God said, "it is VERY good.")
Whose image are we created - by God - in? GOD's image. We are, in God's eyes, very good. Just a little lower than the angels... these passages get to the heart of the nature of humanity, seems to me. So, who gets to decide that these verses are not central to understanding humanity's nature, but the verses you cite are, and not only central, but central when taken literally... I just recognize that not every believer agrees with these traditional human theories and I, for one, think it's okay to not agree on it.
Nor would it make sense to look outside of scripture for an answer.
Why? Who says that Scriptures holds all answers? Who says that Scripture (or some human interpretations of Scripture) definitively answers the question of "do newborns sin?" Why can't we observe and take away reasonable, measurable conclusions? I don't buy that it doesn't make sense to look outside of Scripture. If one's theories don't hold up except within your particular interpretation of Scripture, I'd suggest those theories don't hold up. Period.
Some thoughts to consider and questions to ponder as I carry on...
Craig, where you say...
If you dismiss scripture, why would you not dismiss anything else. Of course, even as you dismiss scripture you still haven't proven your case that newborns are 100% free from sin or human sin nature and are 100% guiltless.
Do you see how it could be conducive to respectful conversation to recognize that just because someone interprets scripture differently than you, that doesn't mean they "dismiss" it? As a point of fact, I do not dismiss a single letter of Scripture. Human interpretations and theories about Scripture? Sure, I do that all the time. But I don't confuse their interpretations with Scripture, just as I don't confuse my interpretations with Scripture. Would it not be more respectful and reasonable to say "When you disagree with my interpretations, why would you not dismiss anything else..." or whatever point you want to make.
Is this a reasonable request and point we can agree upon?
Of course, even as you dismiss scripture you still haven't proven your case that newborns are 100% free from sin or human sin nature and are 100% guiltless.
You agree with me that newborns do not commit sin-acts. You apparently think it is obvious enough to agree with me. Do you think I need to prove that infants are 100% free of sin acts?
I would say, just look at the definition of Sin:
1
a : an offense against religious or moral lawb : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible c : an often serious shortcoming : fault
2
a : transgression of the law of God
A baby can't transgress a law of God, they can't commit an offense against religious or moral law. They can take no actions that are reasonably felt to be reprehensible.
I don't see how it's possible and see no data to support such a claim. If you think you can demonstrate that a newborn transgresses God's law, please provide that support.
Now, if we want to talk about a theoretical Sin Nature, I think it is fair to say that all of humanity has what might be called a sin nature, a tendency to sin, to do wrong. I think this because in all of humanity, in people old enough to "know better," we see that everyone of us has sinned/committed "bad" acts. It is fair to say that we have this tendency to sin, GIVEN THE CHANCE. But the newborn who dies after 24 hours, they never had a chance to choose to sin. So, while they may have had a sin nature, they never committed one single sin act, by any reasonable measure. They are, therefore, not guilty of having done anything because they literally did nothing.
Where in all of that am I mistaken? Or do we agree?
Where I said...
I think this because in all of humanity, in people old enough to "know better," we see that everyone of us has sinned/committed "bad" acts.
I would amend that to
I think this NOT because there is a line in the Bible saying we have a sin nature, but because in all of humanity, in people old enough to "know better," we see that everyone of us has sinned/committed "bad" acts. This is objectively observable.
That is important, at least to many of us. We don't decide about theories because of lines in the Bible, but because of reason and what is observable. The problem with "lines in the Bible" approach is that, even if it is an accurate line, it has to be accurately understood and we have no objective manner to say, "Yes, Dan is understanding it correctly" or "No, not Dan, but Ralph is understanding it correctly..."
Craig,
Not wishing to immerse myself in this lengthy debate at all, I just thought I'd mention something I saw that was related and, fortunately, not biblical. It was on that series, Brain Games. (National Geographic or something?) The episode was about lying. And the narrator claimed that scientists had documented infants as young as 6 months old intentionally lying. Not my claim; the scientists'.
Now, I know that verses like "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa 58:3) or "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5) don't carry a lot of weight in some crowds, but I did find it fascinating the National Geographic agreed with the Bible on this point.
End of intermission. Please, feel free to continue your ongoing debate. I'll go back to my corner.
Stan, that some people (like me) disagree with YOUR OPINION on how YOU FEEL like those type verses ought to be interpreted does not mean that we don't give the verses credibility. There is a difference between disagreeing with YOUR human interpretation and discounting the Bible.
To disagree with Stan is not to disagree with God.
I'm aware that there is research suggesting that young infants "lie," but that is not the same as a newborn.
Do you think that newborns (one day old) commit acts of sin (ie, deliberately intend to break rules/laws/commands/reject God)?
If so, do you recognize how hard to believe that is?
Some of the research...
"When do children begin to tell lies?
Lying occurs quite early in development. By 3 years of age children begin to tell lies to conceal their transgression or white lies to be polite."
http://www.kangleelab.com/ForParents.html
"Children learn to lie from about the age of two. The first lies children learn to tell are denials of wrongdoing. From the age of three they also learn to tell “white” lies. These are lies that are told to benefit other people or to be polite."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/15/children-lie-age-two-tell-truth
The thing is, there is not the cognitive development in a ONE DAY OLD infant to choose to mislead others or to otherwise choose to do wrong. It simply can't happen.
To try to suggest that this is somehow possible is just insane and it makes your arguments start from a place of insanity. And why would anyone start from that insane place? Because of a loyalty to a literal text, even though the text never suggests that it must be taken literally and to an unbiased mind, of course it can't be taken literally.
Think about it...
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
A loyalty to literality demands that you argue that FROM THE MOMENT there was a little blob of fetal tissue in the mother's womb, that fetus was "full of sin..."
From an objective point of view, there simply is no way to argue that this clump of cells minutes after conception is full of sin. That makes no sense. That requires an irrational devotion to a literal interpretation of a text that the text simply does not require or demand.
Do you think that it's possible that a clump of cells is "full of sin..."? How?
Do you think that it's possible that this clump of cells is "guilty" of something somehow? What?
You all can't and never do answer this question because it's not answerable (well, other than agreeing with the reasonable, "no, of course a clump of cells is not guilty of anything! How could it be?!"
Don't you see the problem with this road you're on?
"So maybe that's a good question... Do you think newborns are guilty and if so, what are they guilty of?"
1. I've never said they were guilty of anything.
2. We are all sinners in need of a savior, I see no reason to believe newborns are excluded from that.
"I suspect that's where we are running into problems."
No, we're running into problems because you don;t understand my position, won't answer questions about your position, and are operating off of your assumptions.
"And who gets to decide?"
Since you subsequently dismissed all of the verses as being irrelevant, it would appear that you think you get to decide.
"Why?"
What source could possibly give you answers about sin and righteousness but scripture. By all means lean or your flawed human Reason for answers.
"Who says that Scriptures holds all answers?"
I'm not claiming it does. But who says it doesn't have the answer for this one question. There is your problem, you can't focus on the question.
"Who says that Scripture (or some human interpretations of Scripture) definitively answers the question of "do newborns sin?" Why can't we observe and take away reasonable, measurable conclusions?"
As usual when you ask the same question multiple times in the same comment, I'll point out that I answered it the first time you asked it.
"I don't buy that...."
One more critical problem. You judge everything by what you personally can "buy" or what makes subjective sense in your personal little world. If it doesn't make sense to Dan, then it doesn't make sense.
"Do you see how it could be conducive to respectful conversation to recognize that just because someone interprets scripture differently than you, that doesn't mean they "dismiss" it?"
I've never said that you dismiss scripture in general. When you do dismiss particular scriptures that don't support your hunches I point out those instances. Your problem is that you don't offer an alternate explanation or a credible reason why you choose to ignore the plain meaning of the text, you just announce that the text is "myth", or metaphor, or figurative, or whatever and move on. Until you can actually demonstrate why your characterization is the more accurate characterization, dismissal is as accurate a term as any.
"Human interpretations and theories about Scripture? Sure, I do that all the time."
My point exactly. You dismiss without offering an alternative to the plain reading of the text.
"Is this a reasonable request and point we can agree upon?"
No, it's presumptuous. How about this. If you disagree with the plain reading of the text, that you demonstrate why an alternate reading objectively makes more sense. You know, actually prove your point.
So far, I've wasted a bunch of time answering your insipid questions and you're no close to making your case or answering mine that you were two days ago.
"Do you think I need to prove that infants are 100% free of sin acts?"
No, I think you need to prove that newborns are 100% sinless. Or 100% pure. But you do need to prove your point. First, you can't even prove that newborns are 100% free from sin acts to any degree of objective certainty, but go ahead and try if you want. The problem is that you can't prove 100% free from sin. (Unless you want to limit the definition of sin only to acts and eliminate thoughts and nature) Which you would need to prove as well.
"Where in all of that am I mistaken? Or do we agree?"
In minimizing the fallen nature of humanity. In ignoring scripture on the topic. In presuming that you're hunch is more accurate than anyone elses.
Dan,
The problem you increasingly have here is that you are continuing to ask questions, which I am answering, racking up increasingly large numbers of comments, not dealing with the answers I give you, and not actually making the case you keep claiming you will make.
I've patiently and repeatedly answered your questions. I've given you space and grace to wander all over. I've not sanctioned you for your refusal to answer questions.
Given these observable facts, I am going to suggest politely but firmly that if you don't actually make a positive case for your position soon, (a positive case based on actual evidence not personal subjective observations and not based on what you "buy") then I will have no alternative except to close comments on this thread. I also have to warn you that a case devoid of actual on topic Biblical support will not even be seriously be considered.
You keep making claims and it's not unreasonable to expect that you would actually support your claims.
It's up to you. Actually make a case or please stop wasting my time. I know I've placed my integrity on the line by saying that I will answer questions you ask and my integrity means enough to me that I will keep my word. But I just don;t have time for your childish filibustering at this point.
While this might seem contradictory, I need you to prove the objective truth of the following fact claims you have made.
1. "The thing is, there is not the cognitive development in a ONE DAY OLD infant to choose to mislead others or to otherwise choose to do wrong. It simply can't happen."
2. That you are an "to an unbiased mind,..."
3. That what exists in the womb of a pregnant human female is a "clump of cells" and nothing more.
No wonder you buy into supporting abortion with little or no restriction, you won't accept the science that demonstrates that what is in the womb of a human female is a human child.
Objectively, one can sit and observe, minute by minute, a newborn through their first 24 hours, and observe zero sin. If one wants to claim that there is sin happening, the onus is on them to demonstrate. No one has ever in all of history has anyone done so.
Re: a clump of cells... That is literally what a newly conceived fetus is. How am I mistaken?
"Objectively, one can sit and observe, minute by minute, a newborn through their first 24 hours, and observe zero sin. If one wants to claim that there is sin happening, the onus is on them to demonstrate. No one has ever in all of history has anyone done so."
So, your contention is that sin is only actual physical acts.
"Re: a clump of cells... That is literally what a newly conceived fetus is. How am I mistaken?"
I'm pretty sure that embryology (that's a science) would posit that what you demean as simply a "clump of cells" is a unique, individual, human being at it's earliest stage of development. But, go right ahead and spout the pro abortion sound bytes.
I'm just going to hazard a guess that your "hoped for" making of a positive case and offering proof of your claims is not soon to be forthcoming.
I'll be glad to come back and finish, just a busy weekend.
Briefly, to answer this sort of question...
So, your contention is that sin is only actual physical acts.
Yes, Sin is an act, something someone does. There is also the theory of having a sinful nature, but having a sinful nature is not the same as committing a sin. A sinful nature is a condition, not an act. As you agreed, a sinful nature is not condemned in and of itself, because a sinful nature is just a human condition, like being left-handed or having a tendency to overeat. The condition is not a moral wrong or an act, it's just a condition. But when people speak of Sinners, they are speaking of people who have sinned. That is how English works. A fighter is one who fights, a writer is one who writes and a sinner is one who sins.
Now one can sin by omission (choosing not to save a life you could save, perhaps) or by commission (killing someone), but it is something someone does, it is an Act.
What do you think sin is (and here, I'm speaking specifically NOT of a sinful nature)?
and this is an important question. I have asked do you think newborns are guilty of something? You responded
1. That you never said that newborns were guilty of something. That makes it sound like you think the answer is no, they are not guilty of anything, which of course is the obvious, reasonable answer.
However, you continued your answer by saying...
2. I see no reason to exclude newborns from the rest of us and that they need Jesus.
this response sounds like you're hedging your bets as if you do think they are guilty of something I didn't ask you if you thought they needed Jesus asked you if you thought they were guilty of something is your answer to that no? I think this gets to the heart of the what is sin - sinner. is one who if a sinner is one who sins - per the English definition - then newborns, while they may have a sinful nature (or at least that's the theory) they are not sinners.
More...
my problem and I understand your position, is this so are they guilty of something? Are they sinners? do they need the blood of Jesus to be forgiven?
if you could give clear, non evasive responses to these questions, then we can move on.
and let me be clear, I'm not suggesting you're intending to be evasive, but I hope you can see how your answers seem sometimes contradictory.
Sorry for typos. I am again doing this from cell phone and the self-correct keeps tripping me up.
"What do you think sin is (and here, I'm speaking specifically NOT of a sinful nature)?"
1. I don't see how you can arbitrarily disconnect the fallen sinful nature of humanity from the acts that stem from it. Unless you intend to make a case that there is no sin nature.
2. Sin is anything that places human selfishness over God.
"...this response sounds like you're hedging your bets as if you do think they are guilty of something I didn't ask you if you thought they needed Jesus asked you if you thought they were guilty of something is your answer to that no?"
Not at all. This response simply points out that the only way to salvation is through the work of Christ, that suggesting that newborns are sinless and do not need salvation places newborns in a separate category that you have created but not demonstrated to actually exist. The problem you have hers is your minimization of the sinful nature of fallen humanity and your construct that humanity is 100% free from sin at birth. It's difficult to have this discussion when you haven't made a case for your hunch, but are operating as if your assumptions are facts.
"my problem and I understand your position, is this so are they guilty of something?"
My problem is the fact that you use terms like "guilty" and "condemned" without responding to my request that you explain how you are using the terms in this context. While I don't necessarily think that "guilty" is the correct term, the fact remains that all humans are born with a sin nature. So, while they are not "guilty" of a specific act, the very nature of fallen sinful humanity is to elevate self over God.
Are they sinners? do they need the blood of Jesus to be forgiven?
"..if you could give clear, non evasive responses to these questions, then we can move on."
Like the one's you've given? I've tried to give answers that say specifically what I want to say and nothing more.
"...but I hope you can see how your answers seem sometimes contradictory."
At least I'm giving answers. One problem you have is a consistent tendency to act is is "seems' and "is" are equal. Just because things seem contradictory to you does not mean they are.
When you say you'll be "glad to come back and finish", can I hope that you are referring to you finally presenting the positive case you "hope"ed to present several days ago. Is it possible that a time will come when you will actually make a positive case for your "newborns are 100% free from sin" position. A case that consists of something other than anecdote.
I could be wrong, but it certainly seems that you actually making the case you said you'd make would help bring a bit of understanding to exactly what assumptions you operating under.
"What do you think sin is (and here, I'm speaking specifically NOT of a sinful nature)?"
1. I don't see how you can arbitrarily disconnect the fallen sinful nature of humanity from the acts that stem from it. Unless you intend to make a case that there is no sin nature.
That you can't see it does not mean it's not reasonable to note the vast distinction. And there is nothing arbitrary about it.
As we understand judgment and guilt, people are punished for things they actually DO, not for things they potentially might do, or even will do. Thus, to anyone who might suggest that a newborn is "guilty" of anything, of any acts of sin, they just seem irrational to make that suggestion. You appear to agree because you seem to (albeit, seemingly reluctantly) agree that guilt is not the right word for it.
Thus, there is a distinction when it comes to judgment and punishment for crime/sin between "Sin" and "Sinful nature." A vast distinction. Whether you see it or not, and not an arbitrary one.
2. Sin is anything that places human selfishness over God.
And we have no data, no objective observable behavior that suggests newborns can do this. I think most reasonable adults would agree that of course newborns don't do this/aren't capable of doing this.
"...this response sounds like you're hedging your bets as if you do think they are guilty of something I didn't ask you if you thought they needed Jesus asked you if you thought they were guilty of something is your answer to that no?"
Not at all. This response simply points out that the only way to salvation is through the work of Christ...
"work of Christ" is a euphemism that many evangelicals use to promote the human theory that God can't forgive sin without the literal shedding of blood, specifically of Jesus' blood; and that Jesus' shed blood/sacrifice is a "necessary" (THE necessary) ingredient for salvation. I reject that human theory as not rational or biblical for exactly the reasons I'm explaining here.
...that suggesting that newborns are sinless and do not need salvation places newborns in a separate category that you have created but not demonstrated to actually exist.
You AGREE that they are "sinless," at least in the real world notion that they do not commit sin-acts. If you want to suggest somehow they are "guilty" (not quite the right word, but whatever it is you think they are) and in need of Jesus' blood for "forgiveness" (forgiveness for WHAT? since they have committed no crimes/sins...), then the onus is on you to make that case. But not by merely pointing to some bible verses and saying, "many humans have theorized that these verses suggest that newborns are "sinners" and "need of a blood sacrifice to be... forgiven... or something... for 'guiltiness'... or something and thus... 'sinners'.... somehow..." but actually making a reasonable case that can hold up to scrutiny and questioning.
Or, if you want to drop back to something like, "Well, I sort of like this theory, but no, I can't even tell you why I think they need a blood sacrifice to be saved or what they need to be saved from... so I gladly admit my inability to defend this position... I'm just holding on to this human tradition by faith and because of tradition..." that's fine, just make it clear.
more...
The problem you have hers is your minimization of the sinful nature of fallen humanity and your construct that humanity is 100% free from sin at birth.
Again, rationally, objectively, demonstrably, a fetus in the womb has done NOTHING. A one day old newborn has done NOTHING. That is not minimizing anything, it is stating what is observably reasonable. IF you want to make the case that they are sort of NOT "free from sin," by all means. Make that case, explain what you think they have against them, other than this theoretical "sinful nature..." But if you can't do so, that's on you, not us.
My problem is the fact that you use terms like "guilty" and "condemned" without responding to my request that you explain how you are using the terms in this context.
Standard English definitions. "Guilty," having been found to have DONE something wrong. "Condemned" - held in judgment for some guilt of some wrong action. Just normal English.
If you are using them in some non-standard manner, by all means, explain what you mean.
While I don't necessarily think that "guilty" is the correct term, the fact remains that all humans are born with a sin nature.
This is a theory, an opinion, NOT a fact. Science can not probe our DNA or human structure and find a "sin nature." It is a religious theory constructed by humans, not a fact.
Now, I happen to think that all humans are fallible and do wrong - given enough time and opportunity - is reasonable evidence to support the opinion that we have a sinful nature, but it is not enough to demand that newborns have a "sinful nature," or that there is anything in and of itself wrong with having a sinful nature. Indeed, reason and the Bible would say that while we might have the potential to sin, we will not/ought not be held in judgment or condemned when we have done nothing.
The newborn has done nothing, as you appear to agree.
So, while they are not "guilty" of a specific act, the very nature of fallen sinful humanity is to elevate self over God.
You think newborns choose to elevate themselves over God? Interesting theory. Have any data to support it?
I think not.
Are they sinners? do they need the blood of Jesus to be forgiven?
Those are reasonable questions that your claims beg. What is your answer?
"..if you could give clear, non evasive responses to these questions, then we can move on."
Like the one's you've given? I've tried to give answers that say specifically what I want to say and nothing more.
Which is fine, but then admit you can't/won't answer the actual questions that are being asked of you. Answering a question that you think is similar or in the same vein, but isn't to the question asked is not an answer to the question asked.
Is it possible that a time will come when you will actually make a positive case for your "newborns are 100% free from sin" position. A case that consists of something other than anecdote.
Done repeatedly. Have you missed it?
There is zero data to suggest that the one day old newborn is doing any sinning. IF you want to make the case that they are, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it.
Good luck.
So, rather than continue to go back and forth trying to pin down your specifics, let me just give you the reasoning (rational and biblical) behind my positions on this point...
Given these reasonable and biblical presumptions:
1. No one should be punished/judged in the wrong/be in need of forgiveness for the acts of another; and
2. No one should be punished/judged in the wrong/be in need of forgiveness for something they have not done;
3. No one should be punished/judged in the wrong/be in need of forgiveness for merely having the potential or even likelihood of eventually doing something wrong, given the opporunity;
4. One is not guilty if they have committed no offense;
5. There is nothing to forgive if no offense has taken place; and
6. Newborns (under one day of age) show no sign of doing anything wrong/committing sin acts;
Given that, then, Newborns, being guilty of no sin and having committed no offenses, do not need to be "forgiven," for they have done nothing wrong.
Now, my point here is not to say that there is a unique group of humans (those who die before the age of 1 day) who are sinless and thus receive salvation based NOT on blood but on their own merits (salvation by works).
My point is simply that it is by ALL available data a fact that, by all known measures, there are some humans (at the very least one day old newborns, or if you want to grant human-hood to in utero humans, then fetuses... but not necessarily limited to these) who have not had an opportunity to commit acts of wrong and who, therefore, don't need to be "forgiven" because they have done no wrong.
This is just simple reason, based on observable reality. It has the advantage of being reasonably biblical, too, but it's not "right" because there's a line in the Bible supporting it, it's right because it's reasonable and observable.
If you want to make a case against my line of reasoning, please do so. But you should know that merely citing a particular human interpretation of some passages is not sufficient to make your case.
1. It's your arbitrary distinction, not mine.
2. So you are now arguing that newborns aren't inherently selfish.
"I reject that human theory as not rational or biblical for exactly the reasons I'm explaining here."
The fact that you reject something doesn't speak to the actual rightness of whatever it is that you are rejecting. In most cases the fact that you reject something would lead me to conclude that whatever it is is correct.
"If you want to make a case against my line of reasoning, please do so. But you should know that merely citing a particular human interpretation of some passages is not sufficient to make your case."
If you'd like to make a case that would be great. Simply providing a list of premises your presume to be true does not constitute making a case. Further, claiming that you are making a Biblical case without actually using any Biblical references seems to be a strange use of the term "Biblical".
Finally, if you think that trying to tell me the terms that you will allow me to operate under on my blog is both the height of hubris as well as incredibly presumptuous. So, I would suggest perhaps showing a bit of the humility and grace you always prate about instead of trying to dictate the rules that I am obligated to operate under at my blog.
You can do what you want to at your blog, but you don't get to make demands and set rules here.
1. I presume you are biblically literate enough to recognize the rather obvious applicable passages.
2. If you think ANY of my premises are incorrect, by all means, state so. I think that most reasonable people recognize these premises as self-evident.
3. I have not made any demands for how you should run your blog.
4. Finally, I note you offer no specific protests to any of my premises thus far.
Re: "newborns aren't inherently selfish..."
I am saying that it is batshit crazy if anyone suggests that newborns who hunger are somehow wrongly selfish to want to be fed. are you making that case? If so, I would call that argument crazy and immoral as hell.
Surely we can agree?
To deal with the biblical part, there are many passages that point out the self-evident truth that people should not be punished for the actions of others...
Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--their own teeth will be set on edge.
Jer 31
Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.
Deut 24
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
Ezek 18 (which, by the way, presumes that there are righteous)
We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
2 Cor 5
...and so on. These premises I have are largely starting from this notion that one should not be punished for the sins of the others, a constant biblical theme.
The only premise that isn't directly supported by this line of reasoning is the "there is no evidence to show newborns sinning" premise, which is simply observationally solid. One should note, however, that IF an infant does no sin in their first day, THEN they have committed no sin which they are to be held accountable for, so really, these verses support all these premises.
Now, having disposed of that objection (and truly, I am sorry for presuming you would recognize these applicable verses without me pointing them out to you... I do find it hard to believe that you didn't recognize the verses I was referring to), do you have any objections to any of these premises?
Are you prepared to argue that people SHOULD be held accountable for the sins of others?
Are you prepared to argue one is guilty EVEN WHEN one has committed no crime/sin?
I don't see how any rational person can disagree with any one of these premises.
If you'd like to make a case that would be great. Simply providing a list of premises your presume to be true does not constitute making a case.
These are premises that you almost certainly agree to in whole. They are self-evident and reasonable. BUT, if you want to argue that people SHOULD be judged for the actions of others or punished when they did nothing, go ahead. BUT, if you agree with the premises (and again, almost certainly you do), then I have made my case.
If I have to defend the notion that people are not guilty of crimes committed by others, I can, but I don't think that's going to be necessary.
That is, I don't presume that the premises are true, they ARE true, valid and accepted by all reasonable people.
Re: "strange use of biblical..."
Just to make a minor point... of course it's not strange to say there's a Biblical case for this without offering Bible verses.
If we are speaking of whether we should love our enemies or not and I say "I can make a very strong rational and biblical case that we should love our enemies..." There's nothing unusual about using the word biblical in that sentence.
Just saying...
While waiting to see if you have further thoughts on this reasonable conclusion, let me proceed with some reasonable conclusions based upon THAT reasonable conclusion. Which, again, was:
Given that, then, Newborns,
being guilty of no sin-acts and
having committed no offenses,
do not need to be "forgiven,"
for they have done nothing wrong.
That being an observable, reasonable conclusion against which there are no known reason-based arguments, here are some further reasonable extrapolations:
1. Any verse in the Bible that has text that says things like "ALL have sinned," or, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me..." must be taken as figurative, not literal, because of course a fetus is not "full of sin" from the moment of conception or even on the first day of life.
To try to extrapolate out from these verses some literal version, that somehow fetuses and newborns DO commit sin acts or ARE full of sin is just irrational. The verses clearly are metaphorical.
2. What can be reasonably concluded from verses that speak of humanity and sin - given the reality of this world as anyone can observe - is that, given a chance, we all do fall, do sin, do err, do make mistakes. We are not perfect, none of us, given the chance.
More like how the author of Job describes us, "Man who is born of a woman is few of days and full of trouble. He comes out like a flower and withers..." or, as Jesus notes, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
THIS line of thinking... that newborns/infants/"little children" are pure and beautiful like flowers, we are innocent but we grow up to be stinkers, at least at times, is reasonable and observable. There simply is no rational need or defense for insisting on taking some verses literally that speak of depraved fetuses. It is irrational.
3. This only reinforces the notion that biblical passages are full of imagery and that there is no need to insist upon attempts to take them literally. Why would we do so? There is nothing wrong with the beautiful imagery found within the pages of the Bible. There is no biblical insistence that all or part of the Bible must be taken literally, there is no rational defense for such an insistence. Why would we?
(These are rhetorical questions for your consideration, I'm not seeking an answer.)
More later...
With regard to the fact that all are sinners, including infants, I offer the following great explanation so relevant here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-biblical-evidence-for-original-sin
It contains "obvious applicable passages", so it satisfies Dan's first point in his comment from May 5, 2016 at 1:46 PM. As such, it also handles point #2.
Dan might respond once again that it is a matter of human interpretation to which other humans are not obliged to agree. But such an objection requires how the verses cited in the link can be interpreted differently without merely asserting and inserting what one prefers.
"I am saying that it is batshit crazy if anyone suggests that newborns who hunger are somehow wrongly selfish to want to be fed. are you making that case? If so, I would call that argument crazy and immoral as hell."
Not at all "batshit crazy" to speak truthfully about infants who are obviously selfish, self-centered, "me first" or any other variation of that theme. It is true. While it isn't the same as, say, homosexuals selfishly demanding normal people accept their delusion, it is selfish nonetheless and very much the definition of the word. But since it is an instinctive manifestation of the survival mode, I would not regard it as akin to the immoral selfishness of the homosexual activist. I doubt Craig uses this as the crux of his argument. It's batshit crazy to think one's position is somehow superior in opposing the use of this throw-away comment.
"To deal with the biblical part, there are many passages that point out the self-evident truth that people should not be punished for the actions of others..."
Yet none of the trump the teaching that we are all, by virtue of being human, tainted by the sin of Adam and as such remain separated from God, and more importantly deserve to be so, lest we accept Christ as our Savior. This is true of the youngest of us as well.
But what Dan is doing is conflating those verses with the sin with which we are all born. Those verses deal with the conscious actions we make as grown people. They do not speak to original sin. As such, infants would of course not be held accountable for the "actions of others. They are held accountable for their own sin...the sin with which they were born that makes each of them "children of wrath".
" Are you prepared to argue one is guilty EVEN WHEN one has committed no crime/sin?"
Guilty of sin, but not of having committed sinful actions. Don't conflate. Only Jesus was without sin. The rest of us came from a different father than He. And we were all descended from Adam.
"That is, I don't presume that the premises are true, they ARE true, valid and accepted by all reasonable people."
This demands we accept that which is not in evidence:
1. That you understand what truly constitutes "reasonable".
2. That you know any reasonable people.
3. That all people legitimately reasonable are only so because they agree with you on this issue.
4. That no reasonable people exist who disagree with you on this issue.
Sigh. If newborns are "guilty of sin," what do you mean by this, if it's not acts of sin? Are you suggesting people are guilty and due punishment when they have done nothing? If so, how is that rational, moral or just?
"If we are speaking of whether we should love our enemies or not and I say "I can make a very strong rational and biblical case that we should love our enemies..." There's nothing unusual about using the word biblical in that sentence."
Apples and oranges. You are making a case that you have not supported because you misapply verses that are not relevant to the question of whether or not infants are sinners. You are also suggesting that anyone here has attempted to insinuate that infants are deserving of death due to actions of others. Aside from the sin of Adam, which is the reason we are all sinners in the first place, no one has made the suggestion that infants are meant to suffer punishment due others. The issue is whether or not infants are deserving of death. Scripture affirms this fact. Your choice of verses do not speak to this issue at all.
If Dan wishes to make the case that he won't be held accountable for the sins of his own biological father, he should wait until some chooses to make the argument that he will be. In the meantime, the issue here is whether or not infants are deserving of death due to their being sinners, having a sin nature, being born into sin. The Biblical answer to that is "Yes".
"Newborns,
being guilty of no sin-acts and
having committed no offenses,
do not need to be "forgiven,""
This is another point I don't believe I've seen Craig make...the need to be "forgiven". Dan must deal with the issue at hand, not one of his own making.
In response to Dan's points made in his comment from May 6, 2016 at 3:06 PM:
1. By whose authority does Dan demand that the verses to which he refers MUST be taken figuratively? What is true is that Dan NEEDS for it to be taken figuratively in order to dismiss the implications of those verses and their impact on his position. Too bad they are not metaphorical or figurative verses.
2. As is typical, Dan abuses this verse:
" "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
This does not speak of the sin nature of the children in question. It speaks of their status, their needfulness as it relates to survival. It speaks of their humble nature, their lowliness in the community and their vulnerability. Those who belong to the kingdom of heaven need God like children need their parents. Dan injects meaning that the verse does not imply. He suggests they are without sin. They are not. They cannot be for they were not fathered by God as was Jesus. Therefore, they are sinners like the rest of us, not by virtue of any actions they have perpetrated, but by their nature.
3. Here Dan reiterates his desires to attach literal meaning only where it serves him to do so.
Those who belong to the kingdom of heaven need God like children need their parents. Dan injects meaning that the verse does not imply.
Irony, much?
Look, this all comes down to what in the world you all mean by "sinners" if it isn't "ones who sin..." That is, if "sinners" is not those who commit sin acts, but some other Thing, what is that thing?
If you mean merely "having a sinful nature," or having the propensity to commit sin acts, given a chance - or that we are imperfect, in other words - then we do not disagree. But, if you mean MERELY that newborns have the potential to one day sin, but not that the one day old IS committing a sin, somehow, then they are guilty of nothing and do not need to be forgiven (and, by extension to what PS theorists suggest, do not need the blood of Christ for salvation).
You all appear to be having a problem defining the "sinner" idea that you are hanging all your theories upon, at least as it relates to one day old newborns. So, by all means, define and explain.
Not at all "batshit crazy" to speak truthfully about infants who are obviously selfish, self-centered, "me first" or any other variation of that theme. It is true.
It is true that a hungry or cold ONE DAY OLD INFANT is somehow "selfish, self-centered..."??? No, Marshall, that is not demonstrable and THAT is what sounds bat-shit crazy. Are you actually suggesting that the hungry one day old is being selfish because they WISH TO EAT? If so, do you not recognize how truly insane and evil that sounds?
It has been only YOU who has suggested that a newborn might intentionally commit a sinful act right out of the womb. No one else has made such a suggestion.
As to a definition, or an explanation for our position, it has been stated repeatedly. No one who is born of human father is NOT stained with the sin of Adam and as such is deserving of death...for the wages of sin is death. I don't think Craig has taken it any farther than that. What's true is that it is YOU who is having a problem with the concept, fearful that God would not take pity upon the child, as if that is at issue here. You're so concerned that God be what YOU need Him to be, rather than being the Christian He wants you to be, that you'll reject anything that does not conform to your personally invented god.
"It is true that a hungry or cold ONE DAY OLD INFANT is somehow "selfish, self-centered..."???"
Absolutely. The survival instinct is the epitome of selfishness/self-centeredness. What's your issue here? That we're suggesting that a child is making a decision to put himself above others? Can you ever deal with what is as opposed to what you need to believe, be it about us or God or Scripture? Is there ever a time when you DON'T inject meaning not intended by the words you read?
I've made NO such suggestions, Marshall. I'm simply trying to get you all to clarify what you mean.
No one who is born of human father is NOT stained with the sin of Adam and as such is deserving of death...for the wages of sin is death.
What does that mean "stained with the sin of Adam..."? I'm assuming you mean it figuratively somehow (ie, we're not literally "stained" somehow by Adam's sin), so are you speaking merely of a sinful nature - the imperfect human nature we all have to sin, given an opportunity?
If so, then UNTIL we act on that nature, we're not guilty, right?
Or do you mean something more than a mere sinful nature?
The survival instinct is the epitome of selfishness/self-centeredness. What's your issue here?
My issue is that saying that someone who is hungry and wants to eat is selfish for wanting to eat is insane and immoral as hell. Of course, a hungry person wants to eat. There's nothing wrongly selfish about it.
So, dismissing that as insane (and truly, Marshall, it is evil and insane, just ask anyone), do you have any hard data to support the nutty claim that newborns are "sinners..."?
No one who is born of human father is NOT stained with the sin of Adam and as such is deserving of death...for the wages of sin is death.
So, a newborn being hungry and wanting to eat is "selfish" and thus "self-centered" and thus a "sinner" who is "deserving of death..."? THAT is your case? Seriously, do you not recognize how evil and nuts that sounds? (And I'm not saying anything about God proceeding to punish them, just speaking of the notion that a hungry newborn is a sinner for being hungry (and presumably, at some level "guilty" and "deserving of death.") Seriously, Marshall (and Craig, if you agree): Do you recognize how truly horribly awful and immoral and irrational that argument sounds?
Put another way, you all seem to object to me asking you what you mean by sinner and that you're not claiming that newborns are committing sin acts and are not guilty... BUT, you're also saying that they ARE guilty of being selfish.
Being selfish IS a sin-act. The act of being wrongly selfish.
So, it appears that you are saying, "Yes, newborns ARE sinners, they ARE guilty of sin, and that sin is, at the least, the sin of being selfish because they wish to eat and ease their hunger pangs... Thus, they ARE guilty of the 'horrible' 'sin' of being selfish and wanting to eat, and thus, in theory, they NEED Jesus' blood to be 'forgiven' for this horrible sin..." Is that what you're saying?
At Stan's, Marshall said (and insinuated here, as has Craig)...
neither Craig or I, to my recollection (not going to re-read all 118 comments) have dealt with what God intends to do with infants who die without receiving Christ. Don't know that Scripture actually deals with the issue, but concerns itself only with the fact that we are all born tainted by Adams's sin and as such are separated from God.
I. Have. NOT. Been. Arguing. About. What. You. All. Think. God. Will. Do. With. Dead. Newborns.
That is not, and has never been my point. If you think it is, you are mistaken. I have not said anything like that. I've only been raising questions along these lines to get you all to nail down what you mean by "newborns are sinners" or "newborns are guilty..." or WHATEVER it is you think. So, just to clarify, you are mistaken to think this is about what God intends to do with newborns who die.
Understand, now?
And Marshall, it would be honorable of you to clarify your false claim at Stan's, by the way. Admit the mistake and move on. Grace, integrity, truth, love and all that.
"I've made NO such suggestions, Marshall."
It was not either of us to referred to the possibility of day old infants consciously deciding to perpetrate sinful acts, and then doing so. That's all on you. When nothing we've said even hints at that, having only sought to defend the premise set forth in Scripture regarding everyone born of man being sinful, I don't think the suggestion merely appeared on the screen all by itself.
"What does that mean "stained with the sin of Adam..."? I'm assuming you mean it figuratively somehow..."
You continue to put your claim of serious Biblical study to be the false claim it is if you can even ask the question. All on earth was as perfect as God intended it to be until Adam sinned and from that point, all on earth, the earth itself even, was stained by his sin...corrupted as a result of it...decaying as a consequence of it. This is basic Biblical teaching.
" If so, then UNTIL we act on that nature, we're not guilty, right?"
Wrong.
" Or do you mean something more than a mere sinful nature?"
No.
"My issue is that saying that someone who is hungry and wants to eat is selfish for wanting to eat is insane and immoral as hell."
Well, YOU might be immoral as hell, given your support for sexual immorality, but that's off topic here. So is your issue, as it really has no place in the discussion despite your having forced it in to the discussion.
"So, dismissing that as insane (and truly, Marshall, it is evil and insane, just ask anyone)"
Those guys at Merriam-Webster are complete psychos, then. Primary definitions from Merriam-Webster:
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others (a selfish act)
Never saw and infant that can't legitimately be described in these terms. Not at all insane. Rejecting reality is insane. Accept reality, Dan.
"...do you have any hard data to support the nutty claim that newborns are "sinners..."?"
Asked and answered Dan. Pay attention.
"So, a newborn being hungry and wanting to eat is "selfish" and thus "self-centered" and thus a "sinner" who is "deserving of death..."? THAT is your case?"
No. Please, pay attention. Craig merely described a characteristic of babies. Neither he nor I suggested that said characteristic makes them a sinner and deserving of death. In fact, we could not have been more plain about our position. It seems quite clear that your misinterpretations are purposeful with the intent of demonizing us for adhering to the teachings of Scripture on the subject.
"Seriously, do you not recognize how evil and nuts that sounds?"
I recognize how evil and nuts YOU are for putting words in our mouths and then criticizing us for them. We haven't even come close to saying the things for which you are castigating us. So, you're either not paying attention, you're incredibly stupid/mentally deficient or you're purposely lying about what we're saying. Don't tell me you're asking for clarification on that which was not ambiguous.
"Being selfish IS a sin-act. The act of being wrongly selfish."
Not so. At least not according to the definition of the word that I submitted above. Babies don't intend to selfish in the manner you need the word to mean in order to have consciously and purposely committed a sinful act. Satiating one's own hunger is a selfish act, and also not necessarily sinful just because one is concentrated on satisfying one's own desires.
" So, it appears that you are saying, ----etc---- Is that what you're saying?"
Asked and answered. And it only appears that way to you because you're either not paying attention, you're incredibly stupid/mentally deficient or you're purposely lying about what we're saying.
"I. Have. NOT. Been. Arguing. About. What. You. All. Think. God. Will. Do. With. Dead. Newborns."
Not sure the highlighted quote in context suggests that you did, but absolutely the insinuation is there now that you bring it up. You stand aghast at the very notion that a newborn is a sinner, and for what reason? Simply because their feelings would be hurt by the notion? Being a sinner has consequences. What consequences would that be if not God's judgement? But in any case, I'm not about to get too worried that you focused on this insignificant piece of the discussion. I'm also not concerned by how you fail or refuse to understand what is really quite clear.
"And Marshall, it would be honorable of you to clarify your false claim at Stan's, by the way."
This from the guy who has consistently corrupted our positions throughout this entire discussion.
Just went to Stan's to reread my comments and confirmed that I have nothing whatsoever for which I need to apologize. No correction is necessary as I made no false claim. If you feel guilty about something based on what I said there, that's your problem. Not mine.
You continue to put your claim of serious Biblical study to be the false claim it is if you can even ask the question.
"stained with the sin of Adam" is not found in the Bible. Serious students of the Bible know this. I am familiar with what Calvininsts theorize on this point, but rather than tell you what you mean, I thought it most reasonable to ask you what you meant. (And it is basic traditional calvinist teaching. The question is, are calvinists rightly understanding the Bible. You're begging the question.)
Reasonable, yes?
So, you believe that newborns are "stained with the sin of Adam," by which you mean NOT merely having a sinful nature, but that newborns are "corrupted as a result of" Adam's "stain." But what does THAT mean? Have these "corrupted" newborns DONE something to be guilty of? Are they "guilty" of "corruption" because of what Adam did, NOT because of their own sin?
Do you not understand what I'm getting at? You all appear to be hinting at or outright saying that newborns are guilty of something, or that they are "sinners" somehow, but not merely having a sinful nature. Okay, so what are they guilty of? In what way are they "sinners..." (ie, those who sin, in English).
If so, then UNTIL we act on that nature, we're not guilty, right?"
Wrong.
??! What?! We are GUILTY of something even before we ever commit a sin? What blasphemy is this? The Bible teaches and reason supports that each person should be found guilty only for their own sins. What are newborns guilty of?
THAT is the primary question that you are not answering.
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
And who says that a ONE DAY OLD who knows no better and is merely hungry and wanting food is "excessively" concerned with themselves? It is an appropriate amount of concern. MW is not on your side.
I'm looking for sin, not reasonable "selfishness." Some concern for one's self is reasonable and not sinful. Beyond that, you'd have to demonstrate some intent to support a reasonable case that ONE DAY OLDS are being sinfully selfish.
It is insane and immoral to suggest that a one day old who is hungry and wants food is sinfully selfish. If you can't recognize that, you are beyond hope, at least on this point.
Damn, that would be a small-minded, petty, ugly way to live. No wonder the world is such an awful place for you, if you are finding selfishness in one day olds. Embrace grace, man.
It was not either of us to referred to the possibility of day old infants consciously deciding to perpetrate sinful acts, and then doing so. That's all on you.
I've asked questions, Marshall. Questions are asked to give an opportunity for someone to clarify, NOT to say, "THIS is what I believe" or "THIS is what you believe." Understand? Asking questions is not advocating a position, it is asking a question.
Beyond that, you all still have the problem of holding to this theory that newborns are "sinners" that have not committed a sin (or ARE you advocating that they sin, as in being selfish? It's hard to say, which is why I ask questions because I still don't know your position). I'm still waiting for you to make sense of that.
Look and see if you can understand the problem you're having in being clear. You just said, and I quote...
Craig merely described a characteristic of babies.
Neither he nor I suggested that said characteristic makes them a sinner and deserving of death.
"Neither he nor I suggested that said characteristic makes them a sinner..." YOU SAID.
And yet, you also said a few paragraphs earlier...
Therefore, they [infants] are sinners like the rest of us, not by virtue of any actions they have perpetrated, but by their nature.
So you've said both that newborns are NOT sinners and they ARE sinners. Do you see how that is confusing?
So, which is it? Are newborns sinners?
Presumably, you do not think they commit sin-actions, but that they are "sinners." If so, how are you defining "sinners" since you're not using the standard English "One who sins..."?
If they are "sin-less" "sinners," then do you think they are guilty?
If they're not guilty, do they need the "blood of Jesus" in order to be forgiven?
Do they need to be forgiven?
If so, for what?
""stained with the sin of Adam" is not found in the Bible. Serious students of the Bible know this."
The concept is a basic Christian one known a "Original Sin". It is defined at Wikipedia this way:
"Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden."
"Serious students of the Bible", such as St. Augustine, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origin ( who actually said, "For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.") and St. Cyprian of Carthage who said this:
"If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old Death from his first being born."
...all came somewhat before John Calvin. Paul spoke of it and Origin referred to the Apostles confirming it. So it again appears that you are hanging your tattered hat on weak satisfaction that particular words aren't used in Scripture, even though the concepts to which the words refer are absolutely found within Its pages.
But then again, perhaps all of the above, including Christ's own Apostles are total boobs.
"Do you not understand what I'm getting at?"
Absolutely. You're aghast that the possibility might exist that a newborn who dies might not granted eternal life in the presence of God and are desperate to explain away all that Scripture confirms regarding said infant deserving eternal death.
"You all appear to be hinting at or outright saying that newborns are guilty of something, or that they are "sinners" somehow, but not merely having a sinful nature."
You say this as if there is some significant difference as it regards what infants deserve.
"And who says that a ONE DAY OLD who knows no better and is merely hungry and wanting food is "excessively" concerned with themselves? It is an appropriate amount of concern. MW is not on your side."
And true to form, you purposely leave out "exclusively concerned with themselves". I don't think a screaming one day old is trying to express, "Hey, I'm freakin' hungry, but when it's totally convenient for you and I won't be a bother, I could use a little somethin'."
"It is insane and immoral to suggest that a one day old who is hungry and wants food is sinfully selfish."
And true to form, you base what you believe on what aligns with your personal sensitivities. You can't resolve something that makes you uncomfortable, you dismiss it, and those who accept it, as "insane" or "immoral". But then again, no one used the term "sinfully selfish", but simply asserted selfishness as a manifestation of a sinful nature. More insane and immoral, though, would be to belabor the point so as to portray Craig or myself in an unflattering manner. Typical.
"Damn, that would be a small-minded, petty, ugly way to live. No wonder the world is such an awful place for you, if you are finding selfishness in one day olds."
While I've no doubt you take great pleasure in believing you are more sophisticated to think so, the fact is that I, and likely Craig, don't "find" selfishness in one day olds, but simply see what is obvious. We don't judge it as especially uncharacteristic of one day olds, or even in one YEAR olds. It's just the way they are. Ain't no thang, dude. What kind of idiot can have kids of their own and not realize this blatantly obvious fact of life? It's something out of which normal parents hope to guide their children, to raise them to be less so and more charitable and considerate of others, to put the needs of other before their own. If children were NOT born selfish, there would no need for such guidance. Why this is so problematic for you to accept indicates some severe disorder.
"Embrace grace, man."
There it is again. How does embracing God's unmerited favor have any relevance to this point?
"I've asked questions, Marshall."
You ask questions that our comments cannot compel as they do NOT imply, overtly or tacitly, what your questions suggest they do. And nothing we've said suggests that babies consciously, and with malice aforethought, commit sinful acts.
"Beyond that, you all still have the problem of holding to this theory that newborns are "sinners"..."
No. I don't see that neither Craig or I have any problem at all holding to Scriptural teaching. That's clearly your issue.
"So you've said both that newborns are NOT sinners and they ARE sinners."
No we didn't. Here's where YOU have problems:
"Craig merely described a characteristic of babies." ...which is that they are selfish.
"Neither he nor I suggested that said characteristic makes them a sinner and deserving of death." ...which is also true, as being selfish is not what makes them a sinner (the opposite is true--being a sinner has manifested in selfishness). They, like we, are born sinners. It's like a freebie. Or, it's like skin color. We're born that way.
"So, which is it? Are newborns sinners?"
Yes.
"If so, how are you defining "sinners" since you're not using the standard English "One who sins..."?"
We are born with a sin nature. We are born sinners. Where's your problem here? You're desperate for a distinction that really doesn't matter as regards what we deserve. No matter how you choose to slice it, that we are all deserving of death from the moment of our conception stands as fact. Neither Craig or I spoke of being guilty of having done anything save being born sinners. We have been dealing with what we deserve. Just as our good works don't get us salvation, neither does our lack of evil works. Thus, the newborn does not have to consciously do a damned thing in order to deserve death. This is basic Scriptural teaching.
Wow. I shouldn't do this at 3AM. My grammar and punctuation really suffers.
"If so, how are you defining "sinners" since you're not using the standard English "One who sins..."?"
We are born with a sin nature. We are born sinners. Where's your problem here?
Ah, after many words, here is a nugget that gets to the point I'm trying to address.
The problem is that
1. A sinner who actually sins is indeed "guilty" of at least those sins. They have done something that needs forgiveness.
2. A "sinner" who doesn't actually sin and instead merely has a theoretical "sin nature..." (and thus, the potential to one day sin) has done nothing to need forgiveness and thus, done nothing to be separated from God.
Such a "sinner" would, in theory then, not need Jesus' blood to "pay for their sins" (according to that theory of atonement) since they have committed no sins.
Is this what you're saying? Or if not, how does that not follow reasonably?
Do you see the problem with suggesting a "sinner" (ie, in your idea, one who has the potential to sin, but hasn't yet sinned) is in need of "forgiveness" and a "blood atonement" before being justified?
If you would someday choose to seriously and prayerfully study Scripture, you may get the answers you need. But you refuse.
People, including infants, are "guilty" of being sinners because they are indeed sinners. You wish to pretend that having a "sin nature" means only the potential to sin. That is NOT how it is put forth in Scripture. We are sinners by virtue of that sin nature, tainted by Adam's sin, as so many throughout Judeo-Christian history has affirmed and acknowledged, and thus are GUILTY of being sinners who need Christ's saving sacrifice on the cross to remove the sin that separates them from God. This is all basic stuff. Strange that one who claims to have seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture would fail to grasp this basic truth.
You seem to have great difficulty distinguishing between forgiveness for actions taken that are sinful, versus salvation through Christ's atoning sacrifice for our sinfulness, which is something that doesn't go away simply because we don't consciously and willfully engage in sinful actions. All are sinners either way according to the teachings of Scripture. Try actually reading it for a change.
If you would someday choose to seriously and prayerfully study Scripture, you may get the answers you need. But you refuse.
Marshall, remember: I HELD those views, I'm familiar with the arguments. The reason I left those views was AS I prayerfully studied the Bible, I found that those human theories were lacking in biblical soundness.
For instance, in spite of what you claim, I don't believe that there is a verse or passage in the Bible that suggests that "sinners" = "those with a sin nature." I believe (and I could be wrong, but don't think so) that there is any instance of the word "sinner" being used to describe anyone other than "one who sins." You know, just like it means in English.
One might argue it means "One who misses the mark..." but "misses the mark" is open to interpretation. Does it mean merely "one who is not perfect... BUT who does not commit any sins..."? If so, we're right back to the same problem...
You seem to have great difficulty distinguishing between forgiveness for actions taken that are sinful, versus salvation through Christ's atoning sacrifice for our sinfulness
But this is begging the question: WHY does one need to have "salvation through Christ's 'atoning sacrifice'" (ie, a blood offering to forgive sin), if one has not committed a sin? If one is without sin acts, why does one NEED to be forgiven?
I don't have difficulty "distinguishing" between forgiveness for an actual sinner (one who sins) and someone who merely has the potential to sin, or a sinful nature... I have difficulty because it isn't rational. WHY does a sinless one need this "atoning sacrifice..."?
You wish to pretend that having a "sin nature" means only the potential to sin. That is NOT how it is put forth in Scripture. We are sinners by virtue of that sin nature, tainted by Adam's sin, as so many throughout Judeo-Christian history has affirmed and acknowledged, and thus are GUILTY of being sinners who need Christ's saving sacrifice on the cross to remove the sin that separates them from God.
Again, begging the question. Guilty of WHAT? They have not done anything. One can not be GUILTY if one has not done anything. Do you disagree with this? If so, make some sense of it.
"These are premises that you almost certainly agree to in whole."
And here is where you entire line of Reasoning falls apart. You assert multiple unsupported/unproved premises and then insist that they must be accepted as the basis of all further conversation. Sorry, you want a premise accepted universally then prove it to be objectively factual.
I'm sorry. Which premise do you doubt? Do you think people should be judged for the acts of others, not their own acts? That people are guilty even when they've done no wrong? What are you disagreeing with?
"I don't believe that there is a verse or passage in the Bible that suggests that "sinners" = "those with a sin nature.""
---Romans 5:18-19 says, "through one man's trespass, judgment came to all men, for by one man's disobedience all were made sinners."
---Romans 5:12: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned”
---I Jn. 1:8: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us”
http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp120.htm
"I have difficulty because it isn't rational. WHY does a sinless one need this "atoning sacrifice..."?"
You ask questions like these after again asserting that you have "prayerfully" studied Scripture. Questions like this belie that assertion. What seems irrational to you does not mean it actually is irrational at all, much less so for God. You again demonstrate that He must acquiesce to you or you reject Him.
I notice that you aren't answering the question, Marshall. WHY does a sinless one need an "atoning sacrifice..."? Insults and skeptism about my sincerity do not answer the question.
As to the verses you selected, I suppose IF you start with the presumption that these verses should be taken literally, then one could make the case. However, to many of us, clearly these are not verses to take literally. HOW does one man ("Adam") infect or "stain" others with a "sin nature..." if you're trying to force that into a literal text? How does that happen? You have no answer (I don't believe) to that question. Rather, you ASSUME that Adam is literal and the verses in question ought to be taken literally and THEN you say, "See, these verses that should be taken literally, not figuratively, are evidence that it happens!" That's just circular reasoning.
So, can you answer either of these questions, rationally speaking?
1. WHY does a sinless one need an "atoning sacrifice..."?
2. HOW does an "Adam" "stain" or "infect" all of humanity with a "sin nature" that makes us guilty of... something. (Apparently of being imperfect/having a "sin nature.")
What seems irrational to you does not mean it actually is irrational at all, much less so for God. You again demonstrate that He must acquiesce to you or you reject Him.
I'm not rejecting God, Marshall. I'm dubious of YOUR HUMAN HUNCHES (and those who agree with you). But I do not conflate Marshall with God.
You shouldn't, either.
Put another way, God has not told me that newborns are sinners and in need of the blood of Jesus to pay for their being a "sinner." You have (or maybe you have, it's hard getting straight answers from you all...). I'm not saying GOD needs to make the case in favor of newborns who are "guilty" of being a "sinner." YOU do, because YOU (and not God) are the one making that case.
I doubt your hunches PRECISELY because I don't doubt God.
See the difference?
"Which premise do you doubt?"
It's not a matter of whether I doubt or don't doubt any of your premises, what I think isn't determinitive. The problem is that you present these premises as if they are objectively true and beyond disagreement while not actually demonstrating your presumption. I see no reason to blindly accept any premise simply because you assert it. As usual, you would prefer to have your presumptions accepted with minimal questioning while demanding that others "prove" every comment they make.
So if you want to prove your premises, great. If not, then try again without basing your hunches on presumptions you can't demonstrate to be objectively true.
I am saying these premises are self-evident, a point you probably agree with. BUT, if you want to argue against these and make a case that people SHOULD be blamed for what they didn't do, the onus is on you to do so.
I mean, if Thomas Jefferson said to you that it is self-evident that all people are created equal in their rights to life and liberty, are you going to piss on the claim until he proves it? If so, why?
Only have a moment here, but comparing what you're doing to T. Jeff asserting that all are created equal is a massive stretch. By your incredibly daft logic, you can claim anything you prefer to be self-evident and thus it is so. How convenient!
It's true. Anyone can claim that something is self-evident.
The thing is, if something is hugely NOT self-evident, that, too, is self-evident.
Consider:
"It is SELF-EVIDENT that all Muslims hate God and want to destroy the world."
This is NOT self-evident. The facts are easily enough provided to show that, indeed, many Muslims are devout lovers of God and that they want to see the world be a better place. The data is there to refute the sweeping false "self-evident" claim.
So, if you two SERIOUSLY want to argue that people should be found guilty for OTHER's actions, go for it. It should be easy enough to dispute my "self-evident" claim. But get serious. You two almost certainly agree with my premises. So, you're asking me to make the case for something YOU AGREE WITH and that, almost certainly, is self-evident to you.
This is amazing. You all appearing to be unable to agree with something as basic as the notion of not charging innocent people with the crimes of others. Again, I'm sure you agree with this, so I don't know what to make of your not wholeheartedly agreeing, other than just obstructionism for where it is leading to, rationally.
Wasn't talking about what ISN'T self-evident, or even what is. I'm talking about YOU deciding that what YOU think is self-evident must be so...that YOU insist what you prefer is self-evident. Indeed, this is typical of you. You also commonly insist that what you don't like in Scripture is not mean to be taken literally. Also a convenient ploy always at the ready when you have no response to text, verses or passages you want to believe don't exist to refute your position.
Much more to say later when time permits.
Who decides what is or isn't self-evident?
Who gets to authoritatively decide which texts are to be taken literally?
Do we not each say, "this is self-evident/not literal..." and if someone wishes to make a case against it, they are free to do so?
This is no ploy. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking a text...
On a sort of related note, Marshall, you said over at Stan's...
I'm told, but are we to take that (the verses put forth to prove a point...say...about the innocence of babies) literally? On what basis must we take it literally? Yada, yada, frickin' yada.
Some simply want to believe what they want to believe, because what Scripture says doesn't make sense to them, isn't rational to them, just isn't what a loving God would do in their minds.
Again, you forget, I used to believe as you believe. I didn't change because I "wanted to believe" this other thing. I changed because I believed my old opinions were not as biblical or rational. And, I'll note, you could place this same charge on yourself...
Although Scripture CLEARLY describes Jesus as a pacifist, you don't want to believe that, so you just ignore all the clear pacifistic teachings of Jesus.
Although Scripture CLEARLY provides a mythic creation story, you don't want to believe that, you don't feel comfortable believing that... NOT believing that causes damage to other of your human doctrines... you NEED to believe that to make your doctrines come closer to making sense.
And so it goes. In fact, we all believe what is rational and biblical to us. There's no distinction between me and you on that point, except, I think, clearly, what is "rational" to you is not internally consistent, rational or biblical.
The difference then, between you and I, is not that we each hold our opinions based on what we think makes most sense, but you want to conflate those opinions with "god's word" and "fact," when clearly, it is neither. As the answers to these open questions will demonstrate.
"I am saying these premises are self-evident, a point you probably agree with..."
And here we get to the crux of the problem. You are "saying" that these premises are "self evident" which in your mind means that they are objectively factual and must be accepted without question. Unfortunately, you cannot have things both ways. Either you are subject to the same standards you demand of others or you wish to exempt yourself from having to provide proof of your premises. You will need to choose one option or the other than apply that standard equally to yourself and others. You can't simply announce that since you think something is "self evident" and expect your announcement to carry weight.
Disprove it or admit you can't and move on, Craig. Do recognize how ridiculous you're seeming by arguing against something you probably agree with? Against the idea that we're not guilty of what we haven't done??
Or should I just take it that you are conceding defeat on these questions..?
Dan,
If you can't demonstrate your premises to be factual, then perhaps it is you who need to prove it, or move on. If you can't even base your "case" on facts then why bother.
As to your off topic comment, I'll respond and delete.
1. You may be saying that, but you can't prove it. Nor can you offer any counter besides "You don't know", which is obviously pointless.
1a. No one is claiming to do so, as you have been told multiple times yet still can't quite grasp.
2. Again, until you can offer a reasonable alternative to the plainest meaning, your point is mot. All you have is "You're wrong." or "It doesn't mean what you say it means.". Both options are simply childishly disagreeing with no alternative.
"Clearly, Genesis is written in a mythic style."
Once you can provide definitive proof of this fact claim you might have a point, until then it's just your opinion.
"Clearly, Jesus is a peacemaker/pacifist and taught his followers to be the same. That IS the most clear interpretation of those texts."
If you choose to take some of Jesus words out of context then one could make that argument. Again, it's a fine opinion, but not anywhere near a fact. Please prove your claim.
"Do you understand the difficulty you're presenting yourself?"
I'm presenting no difficulty at all.
Any further off topic comments will be ignored/deleted.
FYI, on my blog I get to decide what's off topic so don't even start to whine.
Allow me to give you an example of what I am suggesting.
a. When you say "Clearly,Genesis is written in a mythical style." You are making a claim that you have not, nor can you, demonstrated to be empirically accurate. You are expressing an opinion held by a minority of people with little or no objective support for it.
On the other hand.
I am suggesting that "Thou shall not lie." means exactly what it seems to mean.
There is a vast gulf between suggesting that the English language translation of scripture is accurate and means what the most common usages of the English vocabulary, grammar, and syntax suggests that it means, and making a blanket statement regarding your subjective view of literary genre.
Now we're done with your off topic detour.
a. When you say "Clearly,Genesis is written in a mythical style." You are making a claim that you have not, nor can you, demonstrated to be empirically accurate. You are expressing an opinion held by a minority of people with little or no objective support for it.
"CLEARLY," (ie, it is CLEAR to many observers) it IS written in a mythic style.
That much is demonstrable.
Can I empirically prove that the authors intended it to be taken as myth? No, no more than your side can empirically prove that the authors intended it to be taken as history. But I've been clear about that all along.
YES, it is my opinion that Genesis is written in a clearly mythic style. I've never said otherwise and I've been quite clear on the point. Indeed, that has been the point... that my side is glad to admit these are our opinions. YOUR side, on the other hand, often want to act as if you "know" these to be "facts," when of course, it is only opinion.
Again, you demonstrate my point.
If you can't demonstrate your premises to be factual, then perhaps it is you who need to prove it, or move on. If you can't even base your "case" on facts then why bother.
So, in your mind, Thomas Jefferson needs to demonstrate that it is self-evident that all people are created equal and have some basic rights before you accept it?
You are denying basic accepted realities. You are making yourself into a villain that can't even affirm basic human rights. If that is your goal, you are succeeding, but I hope you see that it only serves to further undermine your credibility and case.
So, at this point, it appears you concede and are no longer able to defend your argument. This, of course, is obvious to any objective observers. I just hope it sinks in for you.
n, until you can offer a reasonable alternative to the plainest meaning, your point is mot.
This, of course, has been done repeatedly. That you don't understand it or don't accept it does not mean that it hasn't happened. For instance, in the case of the Genesis genre, it IS offering a reasonable alternative (the vastly more reasonable alternative, I'd say) to say that it is written in a mythic style, not a literal historic style and thus, those who extrapolate rather insane sounding theories based on a necessarily literal interpretation (like evil, "sinful" newborns) are advocating less rational and less biblical opinions.
Which is fine. IF those more literal interpretations are meaningful and helpful to you and your Christian walk, I'm fine with it... for YOU. But it is not a necessary, nor reasonable or clear (to many, including many scholars and experts) or even likely explanation. Others go with the more reasonable alternative that HAS been explained. Repeatedly.
Got about 15 minutes here...
"I notice that you aren't answering the question, Marshall. WHY does a sinless one need an "atoning sacrifice..."?"
Jesus doesn't (nor didn't) need an atoning sacrifice. The rest of us are sinners. Again. Basic Christianity 101. There's no way to get around that FACT. We're sinners because we exist. It has nothing to do with our actions, though our actions confirm our sinfulness and/or the legitimacy, fervor and degree or extent to which we follow Christ.
"As to the verses you selected, I suppose IF you start with the presumption that these verses should be taken literally, then one could make the case. However, to many of us, clearly these are not verses to take literally."
On what basis do you make this assertion? It fully and completely contradicts the entirety of Scripture with regard to our relationship to God and why He provided us with a Savior. It renders your belief system (such as it is) a works-based system. There is no work we can perform that is not like dirty rags to God, so we are taught. Yet you somehow believe that doing nothing means we aren't sinners...that we must commit a sinful act to be sinners. How exactly do you resolve that clear contradiction?
"HOW does one man ("Adam") infect or "stain" others with a "sin nature..." if you're trying to force that into a literal text?"
I force nothing into the text. It's what Scripture teaches. It's what Paul affirmed. Take it up with him. On what basis...with what evidence...can you assert that Paul was speaking figuratively at all with regard to why we are sinners? When do we get support for your assertions other than that you (and some unknown "many others") insist the verses I presented aren't meant to be taken literally? Because your true god, science, hasn't provided you with proof of Adam's existence?
" How does that happen? You have no answer (I don't believe) to that question."
Why do I need to answer that question? I don't need to know how it happens, anymore than I need to know how my car starts when I turn the key. It's enough that Paul has said it is so and as I give him every consideration as to his credibility, as did Christ's apostles, why should I question him on a point with which YOU contend because you haven't belief enough to accept what doesn't make sense to you?
Time's up. More coming later.
The rest of us are sinners. Again. Basic Christianity 101. There's no way to get around that FACT. We're sinners because we exist. It has nothing to do with our actions, though our actions confirm our sinfulness and/or the legitimacy, fervor and degree or extent to which we follow Christ.
An "atoning sacrifice" of blood is offered when one has caused offense in some way to set things right. The question, then, is WHY does one who has caused no offense need to set things right?
Are you suggesting that we are "stained" merely by being born and separated from God NOT because of a SINGLE THING WE DID but because God hates humans/can't abide humans/finds humans disgusting/is displeased by humans as a concept? That is, are you saying that God created us, found us "guilty" of being "human" (ie, what the creation of God) and that existence itself is enough to cause us to be condemned before God APART from even one single sin act on our part?
I honestly want to know: Do you recognize how irrational and immoral that sounds? A simple yes or no would suffice (Yes, I recognize that sounds crazy and evil as hell and yet, it's what I think... like that).
Why do I need to answer that question?
Because you're advocating an evil and crazy sounding claim that goes counter to basic decency and justice and human rights, even as we imperfect humans recognize it.
"1. WHY does a sinless one need an "atoning sacrifice..."?"
I answered this already. Jesus does not need an atoning sacrifice. No one else has been, is or will be sinless until that one accepts Christ as Lord and Savior. Yet again, Christianity 101.
"2. HOW does an "Adam" "stain" or "infect" all of humanity with a "sin nature" that makes us guilty of... something."
You know the answer to this. You simply reject the clear teaching of Scripture out of fear that you will be mocked. You care more for how the world perceives you than how God does.
"I'm not rejecting God, Marshall."
You have indeed, as has been made clear through all our discussions over the years, despite your protests. But your protests only demonstrate that you worship something with a superficial resemblance to the God of Scripture...just enough so you think you can get away with calling yourself "Christian". But where Scripture states clearly that which you cannot resolve in your weak mind, you reject. What is left is not God, but something else with which you've replaced Him.
"But I do not conflate Marshall with God."
A nonsensical charge. However, what you ARE doing is putting yourself above Him, deciding that what He has set down according to His Word in Scripture, must meet YOUR satisfaction or you will default to "not take literally" what you have no logical basis for rejecting, much less Scriptural support.
"Put another way, God has not told me that newborns are sinners and in need of the blood of Jesus to pay for their being a "sinner.""
Sure He has, as I have explained above, through Paul at the very least in Romans 5. You reject this as something one cannot or must not take literally because you can't accept that the truth is that all are born into sin and thus are separated from God, and thus worthy of death, until they accept Christ as Lord and Savior.
" YOU do, because YOU (and not God) are the one making that case."
First, I DID make the case with the above verses alone. Secondly, God DID make the case through His clearly revealed will in Scripture as well as the teachings of His apostles and prophets. Your rejection of reality does not mean that God has not required of us our acceptance of Christ because we are sinners since conception.
"I doubt your hunches PRECISELY because I don't doubt God."
You reject His teachings, you reject Him. You don't doubt the god you invented, perhaps, but you cannot bear the truth regarding the God of Abraham.
More later.
:I answered this already. Jesus does not need an atoning sacrifice. No one else has been, is or will be sinless until that one accepts Christ as Lord and Savior. Yet again, Christianity 101.
Are you actually not following the question? YOU HAVE AGREED that a newborn has not sinned. In that sense, they are sinless, they have not sinned. WHY DOES A NEWBORN NEED AN ATONING BLOOD SACRIFICE TO PAY FOR WHAT THEY HAVE NOT DONE?
However, what you ARE doing is putting yourself above Him, deciding that what He has set down according to His Word in Scripture, must meet YOUR satisfaction or you will default to "not take literally" what you have no logical basis for rejecting, much less Scriptural support.
Wow. You really do confuse yourself with God. No wonder these conversations are so difficult.
I don't reject God's teachings, Marshall. I disagree with YOUR HUMAN HUNCHES, especially when they are as crazy and immoral and evil as hell. Why wouldn't I?
That is the fundamentalists' problems. You conflate your hunches with God's Word and you don't recognize that you are calling God's ways evils and you can't explain or make any sense of your human ramblings when called upon to answer reasonable questions.
Good luck fellas.
"That much is demonstrable."
The fact that some small minority of people hold this opinion is probably provable. however that brings up the logical next question, "Who the hell cares?". The problem is not what a minority think the reality to be, it's what the reality actually is. You keep making claims about what the reality is, then slink back behind the "Well some people hold that opinion." dodge. Look, if you are going to make claims, be prepared to defend them. If you won't defend them, stop making them.
"Can I empirically prove that the authors intended it to be taken as myth?"
Then stop claiming otherwise. The actual claim you made is, "Clearly,Genesis is written in a mythical style.", either prove your claim or retract it.
"Thomas Jefferson needs to demonstrate that it is self-evident that all people are created equal and have some basic rights before you accept it?"
No. At my blog, you need to live up the the standards you demand of others. You are not Thomas Jefferson. You are some guy who likes to make pronouncements about what premises must be accepted without actually providing prof to support his claims.
"You are denying basic accepted realities. You are making yourself into a villain that can't even affirm basic human rights. If that is your goal, you are succeeding, but I hope you see that it only serves to further undermine your credibility and case."
No, I'm asking you to demonstrate the veracity of your premises. But if you'd rather accuse me of being a "villain" and denying "basic human rights" instead of simply proving the veracity of your claims, I guess that says all I need to know about your ability to prove your claims.
By the way, I'm impressed that you actually think that I have the ability, power and desire to actually deny people "basic human rights", but whatever leads away from you proving your premises I guess serves your purposes.
Of course, your inability to prove your premises doesn't undermine your credibility and claims, in your twisted view of things. It seems like the inability to prove the veracity of ones underlying premises is the very definition of undermining ones credibility and claims.
"So, at this point, it appears you concede and are no longer able to defend your argument. This, of course, is obvious to any objective observers. I just hope it sinks in for you."
1. Interesting twist from the one who won't defend either his premises or claims.
2. Can you actually identify an argument I've made?
"This, of course, has been done repeatedly."
Please, pray tell, show me where you have done so for any scriptures bearing on this discussion?
"For instance, in the case of the Genesis genre, it IS offering a reasonable alternative..."
If you consider an unsupported claim about the genre of something the same as a "Reasonable" alternative interpretation for a specific passage, I guess you might have a point. The problem is that the two things are not the same.
"Good luck fellas."
Good luck in proving the veracity of your premises. Good luck maintaining whatever shreds of credibility you might have left by once again leaving a thread without actually providing evidence that proves your premises or your claims.
Dan,
"So, if you two SERIOUSLY want to argue that people should be found guilty for OTHER's actions, go for it."
I'm quite certain that I have not made this argument. I'm gonna stick my neck out a little and suggest that Craig also did not make this argument. It is, however, what you're trying to put forth based on the Scriptural teaching that we are ALL sinners due to the sin of Adam. In that regard, we do make the argument that we ALL are guilty because of one man's actions. We believe this because it is true, based on the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture, which was affirmed by Paul himself.
Where you go wrong in your bleating is in your insistence that "sinner" can only be applied to those who intentionally engage in sinful acts. This is not how the term is used in the context of "sin nature". It means, as Paul tells in Romans 5 18-19, that we "were made sinners". That is to say, we are sinners even if we're unconscious and unable to engage in any intentional actions whatsoever. By YOUR logic, we are sinners only when we engage in a sinful act, but not a sinner in between those sinful acts (or after or before). "Sin nature" means we are sinners by nature, not merely having potential to sin. Even Christ had the potential to sin, for how could Satan suppose he could tempt Christ if there was no potential in Him to be lured by temptation? One might even say Christ did sin by his angry actions in driving out the money changers (because as you insist, violence is evil).
But Christ was without sin due to the fact that He was not born with that sin nature (which is passed on through the father). So despite his actions in the temple, Christ was still without sin until He took upon Himself all of our sins before His atoning act of sacrifice on the cross.
Others have put it this way: that we are sinners because we have a sin nature AND because we, ourselves, sin. But without our conscious choice to engage in sinful behaviors, we are still sinners because of our sin nature.
"So, you're asking me to make the case for something YOU AGREE WITH and that, almost certainly, is self-evident to you."
Not true. YOUR premise is that day-old infants aren't guilty of being sinners because they have not consciously and with malice aforethought engaged in sinful behavior. OUR premise is that they are guilty of being sinners, just as we all are, because they are born that way by virtue of their sin natures. YOUR premise is based on the belief that "sin nature" refers to a potential to sin. OUR premise is based on the fact that one was made a sinner by virtue of one's sin nature.
continuing:
"You all appearing to be unable to agree with something as basic as the notion of not charging innocent people with the crimes of others."
We're not even coming close to that notion. You insist we are, but that's YOUR confusion, not ours.
"Who decides what is or isn't self-evident?"
It seems clear you feel that you do. Of course we disagree. In fact I wouldn't grant that you're even capable of accurately recognizing anything as "self-evident".
"Who gets to authoritatively decide which texts are to be taken literally?"
It seems clear you feel that you do. Of course we disagree. In fact I wouldn't grant that you're even capable of accurately recognizing when something in Scripture should or shouldn't be taken literally. I do believe that you do or don't subjectively.
"It has nothing to do with liking or disliking a text..."
I can think of no case where this doesn't seem to be absolutely true in your case. History shows your italicized statement above is 180 degrees contrary to reality.
"Again, you forget, I used to believe as you believe."
How could I forget? You love repeating this canard, but your current beliefs do not support the notion that you had any more sound basis for past beliefs that may superficially resemble mine than you have for beliefs you now espouse.
"I changed because I believed my old opinions were not as biblical or rational."
Which gives credence to my previous statement. MY "opinions" ARE biblical and thus rational.
"Although Scripture CLEARLY describes Jesus as a pacifist, you don't want to believe that, so you just ignore all the clear pacifistic teachings of Jesus."
Christ doesn't teach pacifism and Scripture doesn't describe Jesus as a pacifist...
http://www.faithdefenders.com/articles/theology/jesus_pacifist_t.html
http://freedomoutpost.com/jesus-christ-was-not-a-pacifist-2/
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-jesus-a-pacifist/
http://www.compellingtruth.org/Jesus-pacifist.html
...so it's difficult and irrational for me to believe what Scripture clearly doesn't teach.
continuing...
"Although Scripture CLEARLY provides a mythic creation story,"
It doesn't clearly provide any such thing. You simply assert that the creation story is mythical.
"...you don't want to believe that,"
"Want" has nothing to do with it. There's simply no basis for believing the story is truly mythical in the telling.
"you don't feel comfortable believing that"
I don't feel comfortable dismissing anything in Scripture for which there is no sound basis for doing so. You provide no such basis with regard to the Biblical version of how all was created. You provide only a scientific explanation derived from an interpretation of data gathered by methods and tools invented by imperfect human beings that does not allow for the miraculous.
"...NOT believing that causes damage to other of your human doctrines"
Actually, it doesn't. My ability or lack of ability to fully resolve what seems incredible, and to you impossible, or even proof that Scripture is indeed less than accurate in the telling of the creation story, only makes it easier for people like you and other atheists to pretend the rest is up for debate as it suits you.
"... you NEED to believe that to make your doctrines come closer to making sense."
First, they aren't "my" doctrines, but are the doctrines of the Christian faith...a faith you reject in favor of your false god. Secondly, those Christians doctrines aren't required to make sense to me, which is where you struggle so badly and which keeps you separate from the One True God. Thirdly, those doctrines make sense enough for me.
"And so it goes. In fact, we all believe what is rational and biblical to us."
Again proving you don't pay attention or have issues with comprehension. And I repeat that not all seems rational with regard to Christian teaching, but I don't need for it all to make perfect sense in order to accept it. More to the point, I won't reject a part of it simply because I can't perfectly resolve a tricky part in my mind. I would even go so far as to say that I don't believe there is any basis for believing God even intended or insists that we fully understand or find rational every jot and tittle of His revealed Word.
"...you want to conflate those opinions with "god's word" and "fact," when clearly, it is neither."
I NEVER conflate my opinions with "God's Word". Simply restating what He has said in Scripture is no more than simply restating what He has said in Scripture. Where you refuse to accept what He has said in Scripture, you simply assert that I am conflating "opinion" with His Word, and you do this without any evidence to support the contention nor any alternative meaning for what is at issue. In short, you never demonstrate that "clearly, it is neither" in any way, shape or form.
Time's up. More later.
BTW, as if you haven't guessed by now (and I have no reason to believe you might have), I am responding to past comments before dealing with more recent comments (trying to catch up). This last referred to comments of yours on the 18th.
"Can I empirically prove that the authors intended it to be taken as myth? No, no more than your side can empirically prove that the authors intended it to be taken as history."
Then what's the point of constantly harping on it? Answer: constantly referring to the "style" in which it was written (assuming "mythic" is an appropriate description at all), one can suggest that what is said in that style is not to be taken literally, that one shouldn't take it literally and that it is somehow irrational to take it literally, particularly in light of unproven alternative explanations based on the interpretation of data gathered by imperfect humans via their imperfect methods and tools, because those alternatives sound more sophisticated.
"YOUR side, on the other hand, often want to act as if you "know" these to be "facts," when of course, it is only opinion."
Once again, you prove you have no desire to truly know and understand our position as you once again misstate it. Our position, for those of us to have one on the subject, is that there is no evidence more convincing that Scripture itself to disbelieve the Genesis version couldn't have happened exactly as Genesis relates it. Personally, I have no reason to believe it didn't, given Scripture speaks of God's power and direct hand in the process, and until science can do better than conjecture, I am fine with the Genesis story. You apparently fear the consequences of boldly putting your faith in the power of God over the power of scientists. I don't reject science. They just haven't done enough in this area to force me to accept the "scientific" explanation over that of Genesis.
"So, in your mind, Thomas Jefferson needs to demonstrate that it is self-evident that all people are created equal and have some basic rights before you accept it?"
What TJeff had stated was self-evident is not at issue here. We don't feel about him as we do you and as such we don't require anything from him. YOUR assertions, however, including that which you insist is self-evident absolutely requires more than your mere assertion. Most definitely it does.
"So, at this point, it appears you concede and are no longer able to defend your argument. This, of course, is obvious to any objective observers."
I have every confidence that objective observers (ACTUAL objective observers...not your version of what constitutes an objective observer) would find we have indeed made our case and still await you to make yours.
"This, of course, has been done repeatedly."
No. It hasn't been done repeatedly. That is, unless you consider "Nyuh uh" to be alternative explanation. What's more a "reasonable" alternative requires, not only the alternative itself, but something that illustrates why it should be regarded as reasonable, and THAT must somehow be found in Scripture, not your incredibly questionable "reason".
"Are you actually not following the question? YOU HAVE AGREED that a newborn has not sinned."
No, but you certainly aren't acknowledging or responding to the answers. I have NOT agree that a newborn has not sinned. I have agreed that a newborn does not consciously, willfully and with malice aforethought engage in sinful actions. I have also insisted that I have not argued this point at all. It is not my position and you continue to ignore my position in favor of a willful misinterpretation that works better for you.
Out of time again. More to come. Almost caught up.
"Wow. You really do confuse yourself with God."
Not that you've been able to illustrate by the quote of mine your above response follows. But then, you've never been able to prove or provide evidence for that charge before. Now it seems you aren't even interested in trying to support it. You just assert it.
"I don't reject God's teachings, Marshall."
Sure you do. You reject all that does not square with what you want God to be like. You reject them by insisting that some passages are not meant to be taken literally, for example, or that what the words on the page say mean something else for which you offer no better interpretation. Or your favorite, that verses and teachings that are crystal clear but to which you are personally opposed are "are as crazy and immoral and evil as hell".
"That is the fundamentalists' problems. You conflate your hunches with God's Word and you don't recognize that you are calling God's ways evils and you can't explain or make any sense of your human ramblings when called upon to answer reasonable questions."
Wow!! Talk about projection!! You again show you reject God's teachings in saying that WE "conflate our hunches" with God's Word, as if our opinion came first. That's idiotic and a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. I can't recall EVER referring to ANY of God's ways as evil, but you've done it repeatedly and do it now. We've supported our positions with Scripture, Scripture having informed our positions completely. Just because you are unwilling to accept God's Word when it clashes with your sensitivities is not a reflection of a problem or failure on our part. The same is true with regard to your unwillingness to accept our responses as we've typed them out...responses you can read over and over until you understand them (your return fire demonstrating you don't truly peruse them at all).
Post a Comment