Human Sinfulness & The Accountability of Babies

[John Young]

1 hour ago, DaveW said:

John, if I can intercept these questions:

Thanks Brother Dave,

I understand Bro. Markle (and most here) are not Calvinist and my questions are not for argument purposes or to trap him into saying something he does not believe but I did mean to ask it in that way [but I edited them in attempt to clarify]. I just asked now so that he knows what I am thinking. I am looking forward to the study and reading the arguments but I would actually like to know what is being argued for up front. I am pretty sure I know what Bro. Markle is NOT arguing for, however, after discussing and going around and around on this topic in the past with him I am still not quite sure what his actual position IS. If my questions as presented can be answered or clarified by Bro. Markle simply (with a yes/no/short answers or in detail) up front then that would be great help for me to understand where this study is going. I don't want to argue Bro. Markle's answers or reasoning at this point but I would just like to know what they are so that I can actually understand the logical progression of the study. If Bro. Markle prefers that his presentation is finished before answering my question then that is fine as well.

Hopefully this can help you understand why I asked. Thanks again Brother Dave for answers as well.

Edited October 22, 2016 by John Young

[Pastor Scott Markle]

13 hours ago, John Young said:

Just to clarify your current position,

A. Do you believe, from the time of conception, "original sin" is upon all and that this sin is already fully active in the spirit soul and body? Not just in/on the flesh?

B. If so, Are all from conception completely dead in body soul and spirit? If not then at what level and why?

C. If so, Are all conceived people, dying before they have knowledge of their condition, in Hell? If not who gets a pass and why?

In answer to the above questions:

A. Do you believe, from the time of conception, "original sin" is upon all and that this sin is already fully active in the spirit soul and body? Not just in/on the flesh?

I believe that those points which I presented two postings above concerning the "literal" condition of sinfulness and the "legal" position of sinfulness, as well as the Biblical verses which I presented in the posting immediately above concerning the universal sinfulness of mankind, are applicable unto every human individual from the moment of conception, and that they are applicable unto the human spirit and soul from that moment. 

(Note: There are some nuances of the points and verses from my above postings which could be argued as applying from the moment of birth, rather than from the moment of conception.  However, I believe that the primary, spiritual issues are applicable from the moment of conception.)

B. If so, Are all from conception completely dead in body soul and spirit?

I believe that all are completely dead in spirit from conception, being completely separated from the spiritual life and fellowship of God, and thus that all are completely under the mastery and darkness of sin in soul from conception. 

(Note: As such, I do believe in a form of "total" depravity; however, I do not define its application in the same manner as Calvinistic doctrine.  I believe that any human individual who is dead in spirit possesses NO ability in and of himself or herself to come unto Christ through repentance and faith, but that such an individual requires a "pre-work" of God's grace in order to acquire that ability.  With this it is likely that a Calvinist would agree.  However, Calvinistic doctrine would define that "pre-work" of God's grace as God's giving of spiritual life in order that the lost sinner's soul might no longer be under spiritual bondage to a spiritually dead spirit and in order that the lost sinner might now possess the ability to repent and believe.  I utterly reject this doctrine of "spiritual life before faith" as a false doctrine and a false gospel.  Rather, I believe in accord with John 6:44, 65 that the "pre-work" of God's grace, whereby a lost sinner acquires the ability to repent and believe, is through the drawing work of God the Father through the convicting work of His Holy Spirit and His Holy Word.  Furthermore, I believe that the lost sinner possesses the ability to repent and believe ONLY at those time periods wherein God is performing His drawing work, such that the ability to repent and believe originates from without the lost sinner, not from within the lost sinner.)

C(1). If so, Are all conceived people, dying before they have knowledge of their condition, in Hell?

No.  However, I do NOT believe that their lack of knowledge is the deciding factor in this matter.

C(2). If not who gets a pass and why?

The answer to this question will require me to complete the fullness of my presentation throughout the thread discussion.
 

10 hours ago, John Young said:

I am looking forward to the study and reading the arguments but I would actually like to know what is being argued for up front.

To those who may be interested, I shall present a few general thoughts concerning my positions on this subject:

1.  I myself cannot accept any doctrinal viewpoint concerning the accountability of babies which contradicts the universal statements of God's Word concerning the sinfulness of mankind.  (Note: As such, if you intend to argue against my position, you would be required to begin with these universal statements of God's Word, either demonstrating that they are not really universal in application or demonstrating that they are not actually spiritual in application.)

2.  I myself believe that all babies do indeed have access unto heaven, but not simply because they are somehow spiritually "safe" or spiritually "unaccountable."

3.  I do not believe that the Lord our God allows "lack of knowledge" to be an excuse for sin or to be a reason not to hold an individual accountable for sin.

4.  I do not believe that any human individual is conceived in a spiritual condition or spiritual position of spiritual "innocence" before God, for I believe that such a doctrinal viewpoint does indeed contradict the universal statements of God's Word concerning the sinfulness of mankind.

5.  I myself am compelled also to consider the universal statements of God's Word concerning the God-given opportunity for eternal salvation from sinfulness.

6.  I myself am compelled also to consider that the only God-provided way for eternal salvation from sinfulness is through faith in Christ.

Now, in a previous posting I presented the following:

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 9:59 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

When dealing with a doctrinal question, especially one as controversial as "human sinfulness and the accountability of babies," I believe that we should consider all of the primary doctrines (along with various of their "sub-doctrines") which would relate to the matter under question.  Concerning the matter of "human sinfulness and the accountability of babies," I believe that we should consider the following primary doctrines:

1.  The doctrine of human sinfulness, especially concerning its origin for each human individual and its extent within the human individual and before God.

2.  The doctrine of God's singular plan of salvation for sinners, especially concerning its provision through Christ alone and its application through faith alone.

3.  The doctrine of God's desire for the salvation of sinners, especially concerning its universal nature toward all and its motivated drawing upon all.

4.  The doctrine of eternal destiny for human babies, especially concerning God's viewpoint of such young ones and concerning the possibility of heaven for them. 

Even so, I would place my general statements #1, #3, #4 under the doctrine of human sinfulness; I would place my general statement #6 under the doctrine of God's singular plan of salvation for sinners; I would place my general statement #5 under the doctrine of God's desire for the salvation of sinners; and I would place my general statement #2 under the doctrine of eternal destiny for human babies.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Jim_Alaska]

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

2.  I myself believe that all babies do indeed have access unto heaven.

 

Bro. Scott, would you be able, when you have time, to provide your reasons for believing this along with scriptural support?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

23 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Bro. Scott, would you be able, when you have time, to provide your reasons for believing this along with scriptural support?

Brother Jim,

Answering that question is involved in the primary objective for this thread.  Therefore, as I proceed through the thread discussion, my answer will be delivered.  However, I am compelled to acknowledge even now that there will come a point at which I will enter into the realm of some "human conjecture."  When I get to that point, I will make it clear that I have entered that realm.  Yet also when I get to that point, I will NOT be able to provide ANY direct Biblical support for my "conjectures."  I believe that these "conjectures" will be founded upon specific Biblical teaching; however, the "conjectures" themselves will not possess specific Biblical declaration.

[Jim_Alaska]

Fair enough Bro. Scott. I look forward to your answers and the reasons for them.

God bless you as you serve Him.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

With this posting we begin to enter more deeply into the “thick” of the controversy. 

When the doctrine of universal sinfulness concerning mankind is engaged, and is thereby applied unto babies, a common defense is asserted.  This defense is generally delivered to the extent that since a baby does not have the ability to know or understand right from wrong, a baby is not held accountable by and before God for any right or wrong.  The foundational premise of this defense is that – lack of knowledge equals lack of accountability.

Indeed, there are passages of Scripture which reveal that babies and young children are without the knowledge of right from wrong.  In Jonah 4:11 the Lord God gave the report unto Jonah, saying, “And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?”  Also in Deuteronomy 1:39 Moses reminded the children of Israel concerning the Lord’s declaration at Kadesh Barnea, saying, “Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.”

However, does God’s Word teach that lack of knowledge concerning God’s standard of right and wrong is equivalent to lack of accountability before God for unrighteousness?  Does God’s Word teach us that the Lord our God does not hold an individual accountable of unrighteousness if that individual was ignorant of His standard in the matter?  Let us consider the following passages:

Leviticus 4:27 – “And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty.”

Luke 12:47-48 – “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.  But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.  For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”

Romans 2:12 – “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.”

______________________________

Now, the defense that babies in particular are not held accountable by and before God can be argued from three different perspectives, as follows:

1.  Babies are NOT actually conceived and born with a sinful nature; and having not yet committed any act of sin, there is nothing for which God has a reason to hold them accountable.

Yet this position appears to stand in contradiction to the following:

Psalm 51:5 – “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Romans 5:19 – “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

2 Corinthians 5:14 – “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead.”

Ephesians 2:1 – “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.”

Romans 3:9 – “What then?  Are we better than they?  No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.”

Galatians 3:22 – “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” 

Jeremiah 17:9 – “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

2.  Babies ARE conceived and born with a sinful nature; yet they are not held accountable by and before God, because they have not yet committed a sinful act of their own.

Yet this position appears to stand in contradiction to the following:

Psalm 58:3 – “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.”

Romans 3:10 – “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.”

Ecclesiastes 7:20 – “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.”

Isaiah 53:6 – “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Romans 3:12-18 – “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

Romans 3:23 – “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

Ephesians 2:3 – “Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”

(Note: It can be argued from a comparison of Romans 9:11 & Psalm 58:3 that babies do NOT actually commit their first act of unrighteousness until birth.  Concerning the twins Esau and Jacob, while they were yet in the womb, Romans 9:11 states, “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.”  On the other hand, Psalm 58:3 states concerning babies at the very moment of birth, “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.”

3.  Babies ARE conceived and born with a sin nature, and DO commit sin “as soon as they be born;” yet they are not held accountable by and before God for that sin because they do not yet have the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong.

Yet this position appears to stand in contradiction to the following:

Romans 3:19 – “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”

Galatians 3:10 – “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.”

James 2:10 – “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

Ephesians 2:3 – “Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”

Romans 5:18 – “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”

[Invicta]

Thank you Brother Scott for your posting.

If I may add a thought (a conjecture) if as some say babies have not sinned, we understand that Christ died to save sinners.  

[Jim_Alaska]

Well done Bro. Scott. I look forward to any further postings on this subject.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On 11/4/2016 at 8:32 PM, Invicta said:

Thank you Brother Scott for your posting.

If I may add a thought (a conjecture) if as some say babies have not sinned, we understand that Christ died to save sinners.  

Indeed.  2 Corinthians 5:14 teaches us that Christ died for ALL specifically because ALL were spiritually dead.  From this teaching we may conclude the following:

1.  Christ only died for those who were spiritually dead.

2.  If some (that is -- babies) were not spiritually dead, then Christ did not die for them.  (Note: For those who hold that babies are not yet spiritually dead, consistency of doctrine would compel them to hold unto a form of "limited atonement" - although NOT for the same reasons as the Calvinists.)

Furthermore, Galatians 3:22 teaches us that Scripture has concluded ALL to be "under sin" specifically so that the promise of eternal salvation through faith in Christ might be given "to them that believe."  However, if some (that is -- babies) are not actually "under sin," then God's entire plan of eternal salvation through faith in Christ is "askew."  

Finally, if some (that is -- babies) are not spiritually dead in sins, and do not commit sin, or are not accountable for sin, and are not guilty of condemnation, then they would have NO NEED for the redemption of Christ's sacrifice, the cleansing of Christ's blood, the forgiveness of God's grace, the imputation of Christ's righteousness, the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, the propitiation of God's wrath, or the justification of God's just judgment.  Indeed, then they would have no sin from which to be saved, and would have access unto the glory of heaven through their own merit of "innocence" or "righteousness."

Edited November 7, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Yet what about "those" passages of Scripture? (Part 1)

Concerning Romans 7:8-9.

Romans 7:8-9 – “But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.  For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”

Often the concluding statement of Romans 7:8 and the continuing statement of Romans 7:9 are presented as Biblical evidence that babies are NOT born already dead spiritually “in trespasses and sins” and are NOT held spiritually accountable for a beginning portion of their lives.  In relating a testimony concerning his own past, the apostle Paul revealed in Romans 7:9 that there was first a time in his life when he “was alive . . . once;” and that there was sometime afterward a time when he “died.”  Now, it seems quite clear from the context that the apostle was speaking about the matters of spiritual life and death.  As such, the apostle was revealing that first he was spiritually alive, and that sometime afterward he spiritually died. 

Furthermore, the apostle revealed that his differing conditions of spiritual life and of spiritual death were directly related to his differing relationship with God’s law.  First, he reveals that there was a time wherein he was “without the law once.”  Even so, he reveals that when he was “without the law,” “sin was dead” in his life; and he himself “was alive” spiritually.  Second, he reveals that there was a time “when the commandment” of God’s law “came” into his life.  Even so, he reveals that when this happened, “sin revived” in his life; and he himself “died” spiritually.  Thus we find that this passage speaks, not only about the matters of spiritual life and death, but also about spiritual accountability under God’s law and how that accountability relates to the matters of spiritual life and death.

Now, it is often argued from this that there is a two-fold sequence of spiritual conditions which is revealed from this passage, as follows:

1.  First, a time period of life “without the law,” when sin is “dead” in an individual’s life, and when the individual is spiritually “alive.”

2.  Afterward, a time period of life “when the commandment” of the law comes, such that sin revives in and individual’s life, and such that the individual spiritually dies.

As such, it is further argued from this that the first spiritual condition must be at the very beginning of an individual’s life, during the time of babyhood and early childhood.  In addition, It is argued that the phrase “without the law” means that during this early time period of an individual’s life, God does not hold the individual accountable unto the commands of His law.  Finally, it is argued that the phrase “sin was dead” means that during this early time period, the individual has no corruption of sin in nature, and that therefore during this early time period, the individual is not spiritually dead “in trespasses and sins.”

-------------------------------------------------------

Yet I would contend that the foundational viewpoint that Romans 7:8-9 reveals a two-fold sequence of spiritual conditions is incorrect.  Rather, I would contend, not that the passage reveals a two-fold sequences of spiritual conditions, but that it reveals THREE-fold sequence of spiritual conditions.  Indeed, I would contend that the “two-fold sequence” viewpoint misses a precise characteristic of the grammar in the closing portion of Romans 7:9. 

In the closing portion of Romans 7:9, the apostle did NOT testify simply that “when the commandment” of God’s law “came,” sin came alive, and that then he “died” spiritually.  Rather, in the closing portion of Romans 7:9, the apostle testified precisely that “when the commandment” of God’s law “came” “sin REVIVED,” and that then he “died” spiritually.  Now, herein the word “revived” precisely means “to come unto life AGAIN.”  As such, the word “revived” precisely indicates that whatever was “revived” (in this case, “sin”) had proceeded through a THREE-fold process.  First, it had been alive at least once BEFORE.  Second, it had entered a condition of deadness.  Third, it had been REvived, so as to be alive AGAIN.

Even so, since God the Holy Spirit very specifically inspired the usage of the word “revived” in the closing portion of Romans 7:9, we should understand that there is a THREE-fold sequence of spiritual conditions, as follow:

1.  First, a time period of life wherein sin IS ALIVE in an individual’s life. (As per the precise meaning of the Holy Spirit inspired word “revive.”)

2.  Then, a time period of life “without the law,” when sin is “dead” in an individual’s life, and when the individual is spiritually “alive.” (As per the teaching of Romans 7:8b-9a.)

2.  Afterward, a time period of life “when the commandment” of the law comes, such that sin revives in and individual’s life, and such that the individual spiritually dies. (As per the teaching of Romans 7:9b.)

Furthermore, since Romans 7:8-9 reveals that sin’s condition of spiritual life or death in an individual’s life is directly connected to the force of the law in that individual’s life, we might also understand the following THREE-fold sequence concerning the law:

1.  First, a time period of life wherein the individual is under the law.

2.  Then, a time period of life wherein the individual is “without the law.”

3.  Afterward, a time period of life “when the commandment” of the law comes again into the individual’s life.

Now, this “three-fold sequence” viewpoint relieves any contradiction with other Biblical teaching that the “two-fold sequence” viewpoint seems to create.  It relieves the contradiction that the “two-fold sequence” viewpoint creates with 2 Corinthians 5:14, which teaches that ALL were spiritually dead, and which teaches that Christ died for ALL because of this very fact.  It relieves the contradiction that the “two-fold sequence” viewpoint creates with Psalm 51:5, which seems to teach that babies are conceived and “shapen” in a spiritual condition of sin and iniquity.  It relieves the contradiction that the “two-fold sequence” viewpoint creates with Isaiah 53:6, Romans 3:12, Romans 3:23; and Romans 5:12, which teach that we ALL have gone astray from God, and have gone our own selfish way, and have gone out of the way of righteousness, and have sinned against God, and have come short of God’s glorious standard of holiness.  It relieves the contradiction that the “two-fold sequence” viewpoint creates with Psalm 58:3, which teaches that babies go spiritually astray from God “as soon as they be born, speaking lies.”  It relieves the contradiction that the “two-fold sequence” viewpoint creates with Romans 3:9 and Galatians 3:22, which teach that we ALL were bound under sin’s mastery.  It relieves the contradiction that the “two-fold sequence” viewpoint creates with Romans 3:19, which teaches that we ALL were spiritually guilty before God.  It relieves the contradiction that the “two-fold sequence” viewpoint creates with Ephesians 2:3, which teaches that we ALL were “by nature the children of wrath,” having God’s wrath already abiding upon us.  It relieves the contradiction that the “two-fold sequence” viewpoint creates with Romans 5:18, which teaches that we ALL were under God’s judgment unto condemnation.

Yet this “three-fold sequence” viewpoint does raise a question.  In the “two-fold sequence” viewpoint, it is concluded that the time period “without the law” is the time period of babyhood and early childhood, because in that viewpoint it is the first time period and because in that viewpoint it appears to be the only logical possibility.  However, if we consider the “three-fold sequence” viewpoint, we might ask – When then is the time period wherein an individual is “without the law”? 

I would contend that it is best to answer this question directly through the immediate context of Romans 7.  So then, is there any other portion of Romans 7 that speaks about a time wherein an individual is “without” (or, apart from) God’s law?  Indeed, Romans 7:4-6 states the following, “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.  For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.  But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”  Herein verse 4 speaks about believers becoming “dead to the law by the body of Christ,” and verse 6 speaks about believers being “delivered from the law.”  So then, in accord with the immediate context of Romans 7 itself, I would contend that the time period wherein an individual is “without the law” is that time wherein an individual is “become dead to the law” and is thereby “delivered from the law” through faith in Christ for eternal salvation.

Yet this raises another question – What then did the apostle mean when he testified concerning himself as a believer in the closing portion of Romans 7:9 that “when the commandment came, sin revived,” and he “died”?  After an individual is eternally saved through faith in Christ, do any commandments of God have any place in that believer’s life?  Is a believer responsible to obey any of the commandments of God’s law?  Can a believer experience the reviving of sin in his or her life?  Can a believer experience spiritual deadness in his or her life?  Can a believer ever return unto the spiritual condition of being completely dead unto God “in trespasses and sins”?  The answer to these questions is revealed through the teaching of Romans 7:10 – 8:39.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle