Human Sinfulness & The Accountability of Babies

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Some months ago, in the thread concerning "The Spiritual Progression of Human Souls," I was challenged concerning my position on "human sinfulness and the accountability of babies."  It was my intention to answer that challenge as I was able; however, I have been finding it difficult to engage appropriately on this matter within the other thread discussion.  The focus of that thread discussion is not upon this matter, but upon another (although related) matter.  Therefore, I am beginning this thread with the intention to present my case and to field any question that may arise about it - concerning the matter of "human sinfulness and the accountability of babies."

As I mentioned in the other thread discussion, so I present also herein - Before I speak directly about the matter in question, I shall be presenting a few "preface postings" in order to lay a doctrinal foundation for my case.

Furthermore, in the other thread I have made a few "quick remarks" concerning this matter, which I believe is appropriate to bring over into this thread, as follows:

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 4:22 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

According to Galatians 3:22 the truth that all are "under sin" is the very foundation which requires that "the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."  As such, for any and all who are "under sin," the only way of salvation is through faith in Christ the Savior.  So then, what about King David's child, about whom David indicated that he would one day go to be with him in a relational manner, thus requiring that they be in the same location?  I do indeed accept that this relational reference by David indicates that the child did indeed acquire everlasting life with God.  Now, since God's Word only reveals one possible way for a human individual to acquire everlasting life with God, that is -- through faith in Christ, I believe that somewhere along the process of the child's existence unto the moment wherein God made His final judgment, the child did indeed believe.  However, any further detail of answer that I might give concerning the matter would require for me to enter into the realm of human conjecture (which I am willing to do, as long as everyone recognizes that I would only be conjecturing). 

 

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 10:01 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Actually, I do NOT believe that all babies who die are condemned under God's eternal wrath in hell. 

 

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 8:17 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I do NOT believe in the viewpoint that the Lord our God elects babies "based on an alternate future for the child that existed only in the mind of God."  I would agree with you [Brother John Young] in the following:

While I know that God knows what WILL come to pass, I'm not sure that salvation, based in alternate realities, that were never lived, is really a biblical thing. This line of thinking, to me, is not scriptural but merely using the elect of God doctrine for wistful thinking.

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

So then, for my first "preface posting" on this matter, I present a posting that I had previously presented in the other thread concerning the nature of human individuals --

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 5:07 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I believe that the each human individual consists of three primary elements – (1) the soul, (2) the spirit, and (3) the body. (See 1 Thessalonians 4:23; Hebrews 4:12)

Concerning the soul, I believe that the soul of the human individual is to be defined as the essential personhood of that individual. (See Genesis 2:7; Matthew 10:28)  Furthermore, I believe that the human soul is not at all a physical element, but is the intangible person of the inner man. (See Isaiah 31:3; Luke 24:39)  Finally, I believe that the human soul can be sub-divided into various intertwined parts, including the heart for motivation and priority, the mind for thoughts and plans, the emotion for feelings and attitudes, the will for decisions and determination, the conscience for accusing or excusing, and the “flesh” as the principle of selfishness within.  (Note: I also believe that the term “soul” is often employed in Scripture, not for the intangible inner-man of the individual, but for the whole physical person of the individual in this world, not as a reference strictly unto the physical body, but as a reference unto the whole physical person as motivated by the inner-man soul.)

Concerning the spirit, I believe that the spirit of the human individual is that which God has given unto the human soul in order that he or she might have spiritual fellowship with God.  Because the Lord our God is a spirit by nature, we must worship Him and walk with Him “in spirit and in truth.” (See John 4:23-24).  Furthermore, I believe that the human spirit is also an intangible part of the human individual, and that it is so closely united with the human soul that it requires the precise sharpness of God’s Holy Word to divide the two into separate parts. (See Hebrews 4:12)  Finally, I believe that the human spirit is indeed “the candle of the Lord” within the human individual, which searches out and influences all the inward parts of the human soul (inner man). (See Proverbs 20:27)  However, I believe that from conception every human spirit comes into this world, not with spiritual light and life, but being spiritually darkened and dead “in trespasses and sins.” (See Ephesians 2:1-3; 4:17-19)  As such, I believe that the work of regeneration is that divine work wherein God, by the power of Jesus Christ’s resurrection-life through the administration of the Holy Spirit, destroys our old spirit by uniting it in Christ’s death and creates a new spirit within us that is after His own likeness “in righteousness and true holiness.” (See Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26; John 3:5-6; Romans 6:3-11; Ephesians 2:1-10; 4:24)  (Note: I also believe that the term “spirit” is often employed in Scripture, not for the intangible spirit of the individual, but for the characteristic attitude of the individual.)

Concerning the body, I believe that the body of the human individual is that which God has given unto the human soul in order that he or she might interact with the physical world, which was created for the benefit of humanity.  Furthermore, I believe that the human body can be sub-divided into various and sundry parts, including the brain, bones, internal organs, skin, eyes, ears, mouth, nose, arms, legs, hands, feet, etc.  (Note: I  believe that the term “flesh” is sometimes employed in Scripture strictly for the physical body of the individual, and that it is employed at other times for the principle of selfishness within the soul of the individual.)

 

[heartstrings]

Romans 7:9  For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 

Adam also was "alive" without the law and without salvation. Adam's  "commandment" came when he was told not to eat from the tree of knowledge. But when he did so, Adam died just as God had warned. At that moment, Adam not only began to die physically, but he also became dead in trespasses and sins.  Likewise, I believe every child is "alive" until they commit their first sin. Babies are not "saved" because they have done nothing (yet) to be saved from, but I believe they are "safe".

[Pastor Scott Markle]

9 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Romans 7:9  For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 

Adam also was "alive" without the law and without salvation. Adam's  "commandment" came when he was told not to eat from the tree of knowledge. But when he did so, Adam died just as God had warned. At that moment, Adam not only began to die physically, but he also became dead in trespasses and sins.  Likewise, I believe every child is "alive" until they commit their first sin. Babies are not "saved" because they have done nothing (yet) to be saved from, but I believe they are "safe".

Brother Wayne,

I know that this "quick post" will probably stir up some trouble.  However, I believe that the above is a grammatically and contextually wrong interpretation for Romans 7:9.  Yet for me to handle that particular matter at this time in the course of this thread would be for me to "rush ahead" in the organized purpose which I intend for the thread.  As the thread proceeds unto the appropriate point, I will engage this matter.  Is that acceptable?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

To those who may be interested,

Brother Wayne's posting above has motivated me to provide my next "preface posting" in this thread.  I do apologize for not doing so more quickly.  My only excuse is that I have been concentrating lately upon another thread discussion.

Now to the "preface posting" itself --

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. 

For myself, when considering these primary doctrines, I believe that we should first consider those which carry the greater amount of Biblical teaching before we consider those which carry very little Biblical teaching.  As such, there appears to be little (although some) Biblical teaching concerning the eternal destiny for human babies, I believe that we should first consider the Biblical teaching concerning human sinfulness, concerning God's singular plan of salvation for sinners, and concerning God's desire for the salvation of sinners.

Now, I believe that as Fundamental Baptists we would not have much disagreement concerning the doctrine of God's singular plan of salvation for sinners.  I believe that we would agree that God's only provision for eternal salvation in all of its various elements is provided unto human sinners ONLY by the death and resurrection of God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and that the application of this eternal salvation in all of its various elements is applied unto any given human sinner ONLY through heart-faith in Christ. 

Furthermore, I believe that those who are non-Calvinistic Fundamental Baptists will not have much disagreement concerning the doctrine of God's desire for the salvation of sinners.  I believe that such would agree with me (who am definitely and firmly non-Calvinistic) that the Lord our God desires for all human individuals to be eternally saved, that He provided a way for all human individuals to be eternally saved, and that He draws upon the heart of each and every human individual in order that they all might have an opportunity to be saved.  (Note:  I am aware that a Calvinistic position on this matter could and would likely reveal a more significant amount of disagreement concerning this doctrine; however, for this particular thread discussion, I am choosing to assume a non-Calvinistic position (as would be my own).  If someone who is more Calvinistic desires to argue the matter, I would be willing to engage the matter in another thread.  Thank you for your consideration.)

However, among non-Calvinistic Fundamental Baptists there does appear to be greater disagreement concerning the doctrine of human sinfulness, which then has impact upon and raises disagreement over the doctrine of eternal destiny for human babies.  Indeed, disagreement concerning the doctrine of human sinfulness IS the very disagreement within Brother John Young's thread, "The Spiritual Progression of Human Souls."  (Note: The link will take you to the first posting of that thread.)  Even so, I believe that until an individual has a solid grasp concerning the doctrine of human sinfulness, concerning the doctrine of God's singular plan of salvation for sinners, and concerning the doctrine of God's desire for that salvation of sinners, that individual will have a weak doctrinal foundation upon which to build concerning the doctrine of eternal destiny for human babies.

[Ukulelemike]

A person who has not fallen of the boat has no need to be saved from the wrath of the sea. So a person who has not yet sinned, nor, in the case of infants, even had the opportunity nor ability to sin, there is no need for 'salvation'. One must be need to be saved, to be saved. I don't believe that an infant can be considered lost, therefore, it has no need for salvation. Where there is no law, sin is not imputed. Paul was alive once without the law, but when the law came, sin revivied and he died. It seems pretty clear-that there is not a lot of teaching in scripture on the subject doesn't matter, when the fact has been made clear.

[Invicta]

9 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

A person who has not fallen of the boat has no need to be saved from the wrath of the sea. So a person who has not yet sinned, nor, in the case of infants, even had the opportunity nor ability to sin, there is no need for 'salvation'. One must be need to be saved, to be saved. I don't believe that an infant can be considered lost, therefore, it has no need for salvation. Where there is no law, sin is not imputed. Paul was alive once without the law, but when the law came, sin revivied and he died. It seems pretty clear-that there is not a lot of teaching in scripture on the subject doesn't matter, when the fact has been made clear.

At what point then, does an infant become a sinner?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

22 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

A person who has not fallen of the boat has no need to be saved from the wrath of the sea. So a person who has not yet sinned, nor, in the case of infants, even had the opportunity nor ability to sin, there is no need for 'salvation'. One must be need to be saved, to be saved. I don't believe that an infant can be considered lost, therefore, it has no need for salvation. Where there is no law, sin is not imputed. Paul was alive once without the law, but when the law came, sin revivied and he died. It seems pretty clear-that there is not a lot of teaching in scripture on the subject doesn't matter, when the fact has been made clear.

Brother Mike,

Your position appears primarily to be founded upon your viewpoint of Romans 7:8-9 (although you do not directly quote this passage).  As such, I would present unto you the same response that I presented unto Brother Wayne above, as follows:

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I know that this "quick post" will probably stir up some trouble.  However, I believe that the above is a grammatically and contextually wrong interpretation for Romans 7:9.  Yet for me to handle that particular matter at this time in the course of this thread would be for me to "rush ahead" in the organized purpose which I intend for the thread.  As the thread proceeds unto the appropriate point, I will engage this matter.  Is that acceptable?

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

A person who has not fallen of the boat has no need to be saved from the wrath of the sea. So a person who has not yet sinned, nor, in the case of infants, even had the opportunity nor ability to sin, there is no need for 'salvation'. One must be need to be saved, to be saved. I don't believe that an infant can be considered lost, therefore, it has no need for salvation. Where there is no law, sin is not imputed. Paul was alive once without the law, but when the law came, sin revivied and he died. It seems pretty clear-that there is not a lot of teaching in scripture on the subject doesn't matter, when the fact has been made clear.

1 hour ago, Invicta said:

At what point then, does an infant become a sinner?

I do not at all disapprove of Brother David's question toward Brother Mike's posting.  However, I do wish to add an even more precise question in relation to that which Brother Mike posted.

With the second line of his posting, Brother Mike said - "So a person who has not yet sinned, nor, in the case of infants, even had the opportunity nor ability to sin, there is no need for 'salvation'."  At the beginning of this statement, Brother Mike employed the past tense, active verb "has sinned" and joined it with the negative adverb "not yet."  Thereby, Brother Mike indicated that some human individuals have not yet committed a sin against God.  So then, I would ask the following two questions --

1.  According to Romans 3:23, how many human individuals positively HAVE sinned (a past tense, active verb, just as Brother Mike used) against God?

Biblical answer from Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

2.  According to Romans 3:23, how many human individuals positively HAVE come short of God's glorious standard?

Biblical answer from Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

So then, I must wonder if the word "all" actually means "all" in Romans 3:23.

[Ukulelemike]

I understand the desire to make everything a scholarly debate, but much of the Bible isn't really that hard. We don't have to be scholars and masters of grammar to understand the Bible. We go to hell for sin. How does an infant sin? Can there be sin when there is no knowledge of the law, no understanding of good and evil and the results of it? Does an infant have a conscience they are even capable of hearing and following?  Yes, for all have sinned-so as soon as a baby is born they have committed sin?

I still hold firmly to Romans 7:8&9 meaning exactly what it says. You disagree that it can mean that, but you as yet must do some deeper study to figure out what it DOES mean. I believe it means just what it seems to, despite what you believe to be grammatical difficulties.

Your understanding of the subject would mean the Catholics are actually more correct; I guess that we must do all we can to get babies saved from the day they are born, lest they be damned to hell should they die before they can make such a decision. "Hey, baby, when you're done nursing, I'd like to share with you about my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."  Maybe we need to reconsider pedobaptism? Or does it fall back to, 'Well, God has predestined them to heaven or hell, so we'll just let God decide where they go." Somehow I can't imagine an infant burning in hell when they have no way to be saved.

 

 

[Jim_Alaska]

A question was asked; "how do babies sin?"  For the issue being discussed here I think this may be the best answer:  1Co 15:22 For as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive.

I believe it is a matter of the nature of the thing being born. When a baby is born they are born with Adam's sin nature passed on to them genetically and spiritually.

So it really comes down to another poster that asked the question; "Is a person a sinner because he sins, or does he sin because he is a sinner?"

I have used another illustration of this principal in sermons which goes like this; Does a dog bark because he is a dog, or does barking make the animal a dog?  Now just insert the word, "sin or sinner" in place of bark. Maybe an over simplification, but a valid question also.

[No Nicolaitans]

I'm not trying to argue or prove that I'm right; however, since I was briefly involved in this particular discussion in the other thread, I feel a responsibility to respond. However (yet again), I don't know what else I could possibly add other than what I said in the other thread; in which, I believe that I gave biblical proof as to where babies/infants/young children go if they die, and as to whether or not God holds them accountable for sin. While I see that the biblical reasoning that I gave didn't persuade others from their position; at the same time, I haven't been swayed from mine.

Since it appears that I can no longer quote from one thread into another for some reason, I've copied and pasted what I said in the other thread...

 

QUOTE:

I've been following this thread from afar...and I'm actually perplexed by it. If I'm wrong, please forgive me. However, it seems that those in opposition to John Young's premise are insinuating that babies and young children who die are lost. I've noticed that no one has seemed to come right out and say it, but that's what I gather from what has transpired so far. Let's just lay it out plain...am I correct to assume that those who disagree with John Young's premise believe that babies and young children who die will spend eternity in the lake of fire? They are doomed? They will suffer eternal torment?

Do I believe that Christ is the only way of salvation? Yes...most definitely. 

Do I believe that one must accept Christ in order to be saved? Yes...most definitely.

Do I believe that babies are born with a sin nature? Yes...most definitely.

Do I believe that babies and young children who die are lost? No...most definitely not.

Do I agree with John Young? I don't know; I'm having a hard time following some of his line of thinking. However, I do agree with his premise.

From what I've read from those in opposition to Mr. Young, babies and young children are lost, because they didn't accept Christ.  So, with that in mind, may I ask...what must one do to be saved? I won't cover that, because we all know. Now, if a baby or young child dies and is lost because they didn't accept Christ, then tell me HOW can a baby or young child do what is necessary for salvation? HOW? They are doomed because they haven't accepted Christ, yet how can they accept Christ? They aren't cognizant enough to know or understand the gospel...or their need of it. They aren't even cognizant enough to know that God exists through the witness of nature/creation. Unlike heathen nations who have the witness of nature and are a law unto themselves (Romans 2:14) and are therefore guilty, how can a baby or young child comprehend or understand sin or salvation?

How can a baby or young child repent? They can't comprehend it.

How can a baby or young child believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? How? They can't comprehend one iota of it.

Yet, God will punish them despite the fact that they have no possible way of cognizance regarding sin, repentance, salvation, Jesus Christ, the gospel, etc.?

Do I believe that babies and young children are innocent; therefore, if they should die, they will go to heaven? Yes...most definitely. Why? I believe that, because that's what the Bible teaches. Do I believe in an "age of accountability"? Yes, but I prefer to refer to it as the Bible does...when a child knows to do what's right and reject evil.

Please...PLEASE...consider EACH of the following...

Innocent: Example 1

Ecclesiastes 6:3
If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.

Solomon said that to be aborted was better than to live a long life, have many children, and yet be sad with no burial. So...it's better to go to the lake of fire than to be sad with no burial?

Innocent: Example 2

Jeremiah 19:4-5
4   Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;
5   They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Who were those that Jeremiah referred to as "the blood of innocents"? They were their children...whom God proclaimed as innocent...cleansed, cleared, and acquitted.

Innocent: Example 3

Deuteronomy 1:39
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.

Why did God punish Israel for not entering the promised land? Why were all of those 20 years old and above going to die in the wilderness? It was because of UNBELIEF! Yet, here Moses clearly says that God would bring their children into the land. Why? Because though the parents didn't believe God, the children had "no knowledge between good and evil". They were innocent.

Innocent: Example 4

Jonah 4:11 (KJV)
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?

Jonah wanted Nineveh to suffer...he wanted it destroyed! Yet, God was appealing to Jonah? Why should he destroy 120,000 people who couldn't understand the difference between their right hand and left hand? Was this the entire population of Nineveh? I guess that's possible, except that doesn't make sense. God was going to destroy Nineveh because of how grievous their sin was...yet, they didn't know their right hand from their left? Nineveh was so big that it took three days to walk from one end to the other. When Jonah preached to them, he only went one day's journey into the city. The city was...HUGE! I find it hard to believe that in a city that size, the total population was only 120,000 people. So to whom is God referring? It must be the babies and children (and possibly the mentally retarded). Who else can't discern between their right hand and left hand?

Innocent: Example 5

Isaiah 7:14-16 (KJV)
14   Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15   Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16   For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Here we have one of the most beloved prophecies of the Lord Jesus Christ...yet many ignore the fact that even the Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God...God in the flesh...the same yesterday, today, and forever...the first and the last...the Alpha and Omega...who was, is, and ever shall be...ALMIGHTY GOD...that as a child, even he had to reach an age; in which, he knew the difference between good and evil.

Innocent: Example 6

Job 3:11-19 (KJV)
11   Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?
12   Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck?
13   For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest,
14   With kings and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves;
15   Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver:
16   Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.
17   There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.
18   There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor.
19   The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master.

Job thought it would have been better to have died when he came out of the belly...at birth. Why? Because "there" the wicked cease from troubling. "There", the weary be at rest. "There", the prisoners rest together without the voice of the oppressor, and "there" is freedom.

Sounds a lot like heaven.

END QUOTE

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

32 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I'm not trying to argue or prove that I'm right; however, since I was briefly involved in this particular discussion in the other thread, I feel a responsibility to respond. However (yet again), I don't know what else I could possibly add other than what I said in the other thread; in which, I believe that I gave biblical proof as to where babies/infants/young children go if they die, and as to whether or not God holds them accountable for sin. While I see that the biblical reasoning that I gave didn't persuade others from their position; at the same time, I haven't been swayed from mine.

Since it appears that I can no longer quote from one thread into another for some reason, I've copied and pasted what I said in the other thread...

Thank you, Brother McWhorter, for reposting your posting from the other thread into this thread.  Since this particular focus of the discussion from the other thread was primarily rooted in your posting, this reposting will help the present thread discussion to move along in its intended purpose.  Furthermore, your reposting will help to generate understanding as to the reason for my focus upon the subject at all.

Now then, you are correct that your posting did not persuade me away from my position concerning the eternal destiny of babies - a position which I have NOT even yet revealed in its fullness.  Furthermore, you are correct that I have not yet engaged the details of your posting with fullness.  That will likely occur more fully as this thread discussion continues.

[No Nicolaitans]

23 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Thank you, Brother McWhorter, for reposting your posting from the other thread into this thread.  Since this particular focus of the discussion from the other thread was primarily rooted in your posting, this reposting will help the present thread discussion to move along in its intended purpose.  Furthermore, your reposting will help to generate understanding as to the reason for my focus upon the subject at all.

Now then, you are correct that your posting did not persuade me away from my position concerning the eternal destiny of babies - a position which I have NOT even yet revealed in its fullness.  Furthermore, you are correct that I have not yet engaged the details of your posting with fullness.  That will likely occur more fully as this thread discussion continues.

Pastor Markle, just so there is no misunderstanding in what I'm about to say...I trust that you know that I have the deepest respect for you, and I love you as my brother in Christ; however, I'll not be engaging in this topic any longer. I welcome any and all responses that you may give regarding my post/beliefs, and I promise you that I will read them thoughtfully and prayerfully. However, after careful consideration, this is not a subject that I feel comfortable taking part in.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

12 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

I understand the desire to make everything a scholarly debate, but much of the Bible isn't really that hard. We don't have to be scholars and masters of grammar to understand the Bible.

Brother Mike,

I have NO desire "to make everything a scholarly debate."  Indeed, I have NO desire to be a Bible "scholar."  However, I have EVERY desire to be a Bible STUDENT, searching the Scripture and studying to show myself approved unto God, rightly dividing God's Word of truth with precision.  (By the way, I am finding it more and more grievous how often those who claim to be Fundamental Baptists act as if grammar in Bible study is not that important.  Grammar by definition encompasses the words, word definitions, and word usages in a given passage.  Grammar is that which gives a word a context within a given sentence.  So then, are we Fundamental Baptist also of the opinion that context really does not matter all the much either?  As for me, I say - GOD FORBID!!!)

Indeed, much of the Bible really is NOT that hard to understand.  Therefore, when someone says that some have not yet sinned, but the Bible in Romans 3:23 says, "For all HAVE sinned," it is not really that hard to understand that there is a direct contradiction between what someone says and what the Bible says.  It is also not that hard to determine which is right and which is wrong.  The following presentation is NOT a deep scholarly presentation, or even a deep grammatical presentation.  It is simply two questions with two answers through direct Bible quotation --

20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

1.  According to Romans 3:23, how many human individuals positively HAVE sinned (a past tense, active verb, just as Brother Mike used) against God?

Biblical answer from Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

2.  According to Romans 3:23, how many human individuals positively HAVE come short of God's glorious standard?

Biblical answer from Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

So then, I must wonder if the word "all" actually means "all" in Romans 3:23.

 

12 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

How does an infant sin? Can there be sin when there is no knowledge of the law, no understanding of good and evil and the results of it? Does an infant have a conscience they are even capable of hearing and following?  Yes, for all have sinned-so as soon as a baby is born they have committed sin?

So then, instead of doing direct Bible study through a consideration of the precise grammar and context, it would be better if we just ask philosophical questions?

You say -  "Yes, for all have sinned-so as soon as a baby is born they have committed sin?"

 Are you asking me to question the directly stated truth of God's Holy Word in Romans 3:23?  Please understand that I WILL NOT do that.  Yet in your question you use the phrase, "as soon as a baby is born" in relation to the matter of committing sin.  In response I present Psalm 58:3 -- "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."  It appears to me as if God's Word in Psalm 58:3 very directly answered your philosophical question.
 

12 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

I still hold firmly to Romans 7:8&9 meaning exactly what it says. You disagree that it can mean that, but you as yet must do some deeper study to figure out what it DOES mean. I believe it means just what it seems to, despite what you believe to be grammatical difficulties.

I also hold firmly that Romans 7:8-9 means exactly what it says.  The question is NOT if it means exactly what it says.  The question is unto what time period of an individual's life is it intended to apply, for that time period is NOT precisely mentioned in the two verses themselves.  However, the grammar in and the context of the two verses does reveal that intended application.  Actually, I do not need to do deeper study in order to "figure out" what these two verses mean.  The grammar and context of these two verses help to make it fairly clear.  Indeed, I do NOT believe that there are any "grammatical difficulties."  I just believe that many have not even considered the actual grammatical and contextual REALITIES.

So then, a grammatical question for you -- What does the verb "revived" precisely mean?  It is one of the verbs that God the Holy inspired to be used in Romans 5:9.  Therefore, the precise meaning of this word is important for "rightly dividing" the statement of Romans 5:9, yes?  Does the verb "revived" simply mean "to live;" or does it mean "to live AGAIN"?
 

12 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Your understanding of the subject would mean the Catholics are actually more correct; I guess that we must do all we can to get babies saved from the day they are born, lest they be damned to hell should they die before they can make such a decision. "Hey, baby, when you're done nursing, I'd like to share with you about my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."  Maybe we need to reconsider pedobaptism? Or does it fall back to, 'Well, God has predestined them to heaven or hell, so we'll just let God decide where they go." Somehow I can't imagine an infant burning in hell when they have no way to be saved.

Your comparison of my position with that of the Catholics really has NO relevancy concerning a "rightly dividing" of that which God's Word actually states in the passage.  This comparison and that which you present thereafter is simply intended to undercut the process of precise Bible study through sarcasm.  As for me, I will simply ignore this as completely irrelevant.  I myself only care to consider that which is actual, precise Bible study.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling & grammar