How can an innocent baby have a reprobate mind?
Question to Calvinists
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
Question to Calvinists
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
1. Faulty premise: Innocent babies have this reprobate mind.PAULESPINO wrote:How can an innocent baby have a reprobate mind?
2: Problem: Begging the question.
Sure, we don't see the *explicitly* stated conclusion, but the question is begged by stating it as you do.
First: Psalms 51:5.
Does this say, as some are wont to say, that men are brought forth in iniquity... once they reach the age of accountability? Where is this in Scripture?Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
Second: Psalm 58:3.
Plus, if you look at the extended discussion through Romans 5 - especially 12-21, you can see the progression of Adam's sin through humanity.The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.
We have a distinct tendency to look at our children through the eyes of parents. We see them sleeping angelically, and think their hearts match this appearance. Their skin is unblemished, they have not yet been outwardly tainted, to our perceptions, with the sins and behaviors of the world.
Third, however: 1 Samuel 16:7
Do you see where this leads us? We see the outward appearance of a child. We think we are seeing clearly - but we do not. God, however, does.But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God {sees} not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
Fourth: Add that to Jeremiah 17:9.
Do we think this to apply to all *but* children? What Scriptural warrant do we have to say so? We certainly can't use the "come like a little child" passage, in Luke 18. Look at the context. Christ is teaching about humility, in the same scene, and the parents are bringing him their children to bless. In the ancient world, no one was lowlier than children. No one more humble. A child will believe more readily than an adult, because they don't have the baggage an adult brings with them to every discussion. The preconceptions. The traditions. The self-righteousness."The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?
So, Christ tells the disciples who object, we are to become like children. Trusting our Father in heaven, and humbling ourselves before Him. Now, I won't go into how we get there - but it's covered in the context prior to John 3:16. We must be born *again*. To life, not to death.
As humans in a fallen world, we are born to death, not life.
Now, as to the folllow-up that I'm sure will come - Reformed theology does not "doom" children. In Reformed theology, the eternal fate of our children is in the same hands it is in all other circumstances. The hands of God. "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."
No man's mind is "adokimos", or "standing the test - approved" (the word for 'reprobate', in the original question, derived from Romans 1). Man's mind is imperfect, the depravity of man extends into every crevice of his nature. However, God has mercy on whom He shows mercy, does He not? We trust in the mercy of God - who, as He commanded Elijah, is able to raise the children of His faithful ones - like the widow's son.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Paul,
The post following your question is only a partial answer. And obviously a Calvinistic answer, which of course, leaves out more positive scriptures in regards to children.
Later, when I have time, I will help with the answer to your question, as I have studied this particular topic.
Greg
The post following your question is only a partial answer. And obviously a Calvinistic answer, which of course, leaves out more positive scriptures in regards to children.
Later, when I have time, I will help with the answer to your question, as I have studied this particular topic.
Greg
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
1. Faulty premise: Innocent babies have this reprobate mind.
What I'm trying to say is that babies does not have a reprobate mind. Why? Simply because they do not know the difference between right and wrong therefore it is not faulty to assume that babies does not have reprobate mind.
Are you telling me that new born babies can distinguish the difference between right and wrong?
First let's take a look at Psalms 51:5
1) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
Let me remind you that Psalm was written in poetic format and therefore
this particular book is full of expressions that can not be taken literally ( figure of speech) This verse is one of them. David was very emotional during the time he was writing this passage,
I said this because look at the previous verses and the verses after that you can see that David was showing his remorse to the point that he was saying that he was not worthy of anything and that he has done many evil things that it seems that he was born with it.
By saying what he wrote in Psalm 51:5 he was actually saying in figurative language that he is a very very bad person and that it looks like that he was born with it ( sin ) even though he was not that's all. In a way we can say that this is a hyperbole.
2)Second If the language of Psalm 51:5 and 58:3-6 is to be taken literally, then we encounter a contradiction between the two texts. Psalm 51:5 would teach that the child is a sinner from the moment of his conception, whereas Psalm 58:3 would suggest that the infant does not “go astray”
until he is born – nine months later. Which is it – if the text is strictly literal?
3)The fact that the sinner is said to “go astray” (Psa. 58:3), rather than being “born astray,” reveals the individual’s personal guilt, rather than Adam’s responsibility (as in the “original sin” theory). Compare Isaiah’s declaration: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned
every one to his own way” (Isa. 53:6). No one is considered “sinful” on account of the sins of someone else (Ezek. 18:20).
4)A literal interpretation of Psalm 58:3 involves an impossibility. It has the infant “speaking” lies as soon as it is born, which we know is not the reality. However we often figuratively express words using hyperbole.
Similarly, the fact that these “estranged” people are said to have “teeth” at the point of birth (v. 6) is further evidence that David is not speaking of a literal, newborn child. Can you cite a case of where a day-old child has told a lie? If he does he must be superhuman being!
5)If the text of Psalm 58:3 is to be pressed literally, these little ones who are “speaking lies” must have their teeth broken (v. 6). And since they are compared to poisonous snakes, the implication is that they should be killed so that their venom will not be deadly to others. Can you not see the gross error in pressing this language into a literal interpretation?
6)If the language of Psalm 58:3-6 is literal, You must conclude that David was not dealing with human beings at all, but with “lions” – and, in fact, lions that spoke lies (v. 6). What is this: an example of figurative language, or some kind of Walt Disney production?
One of the rules of Bible interpretation is that one must never force a scriptural statement into a situation wherein an absurdity is affirmed. Such certainly would be the case, however, if the “original sin” interpretation of this passage is maintained.
Applying proper Hermeneutics we can say that the meaning of the text in 58:3 are the following:When one’s life is viewed as a whole, relatively early in life each rational person begins to move away from God into a sinful state of spiritual rebellion. He utters things contrary to the
will of God.He does not listen and respond to the voice of the Lord. Such conduct, therefore, if pursed continuously, is worthy of punishment.
What I'm trying to say is that babies does not have a reprobate mind. Why? Simply because they do not know the difference between right and wrong therefore it is not faulty to assume that babies does not have reprobate mind.
Are you telling me that new born babies can distinguish the difference between right and wrong?
First let's take a look at Psalms 51:5
1) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
Let me remind you that Psalm was written in poetic format and therefore
this particular book is full of expressions that can not be taken literally ( figure of speech) This verse is one of them. David was very emotional during the time he was writing this passage,
I said this because look at the previous verses and the verses after that you can see that David was showing his remorse to the point that he was saying that he was not worthy of anything and that he has done many evil things that it seems that he was born with it.
By saying what he wrote in Psalm 51:5 he was actually saying in figurative language that he is a very very bad person and that it looks like that he was born with it ( sin ) even though he was not that's all. In a way we can say that this is a hyperbole.
2)Second If the language of Psalm 51:5 and 58:3-6 is to be taken literally, then we encounter a contradiction between the two texts. Psalm 51:5 would teach that the child is a sinner from the moment of his conception, whereas Psalm 58:3 would suggest that the infant does not “go astray”
until he is born – nine months later. Which is it – if the text is strictly literal?
3)The fact that the sinner is said to “go astray” (Psa. 58:3), rather than being “born astray,” reveals the individual’s personal guilt, rather than Adam’s responsibility (as in the “original sin” theory). Compare Isaiah’s declaration: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned
every one to his own way” (Isa. 53:6). No one is considered “sinful” on account of the sins of someone else (Ezek. 18:20).
4)A literal interpretation of Psalm 58:3 involves an impossibility. It has the infant “speaking” lies as soon as it is born, which we know is not the reality. However we often figuratively express words using hyperbole.
Similarly, the fact that these “estranged” people are said to have “teeth” at the point of birth (v. 6) is further evidence that David is not speaking of a literal, newborn child. Can you cite a case of where a day-old child has told a lie? If he does he must be superhuman being!
5)If the text of Psalm 58:3 is to be pressed literally, these little ones who are “speaking lies” must have their teeth broken (v. 6). And since they are compared to poisonous snakes, the implication is that they should be killed so that their venom will not be deadly to others. Can you not see the gross error in pressing this language into a literal interpretation?
6)If the language of Psalm 58:3-6 is literal, You must conclude that David was not dealing with human beings at all, but with “lions” – and, in fact, lions that spoke lies (v. 6). What is this: an example of figurative language, or some kind of Walt Disney production?
One of the rules of Bible interpretation is that one must never force a scriptural statement into a situation wherein an absurdity is affirmed. Such certainly would be the case, however, if the “original sin” interpretation of this passage is maintained.
Applying proper Hermeneutics we can say that the meaning of the text in 58:3 are the following:When one’s life is viewed as a whole, relatively early in life each rational person begins to move away from God into a sinful state of spiritual rebellion. He utters things contrary to the
will of God.He does not listen and respond to the voice of the Lord. Such conduct, therefore, if pursed continuously, is worthy of punishment.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
The particular GENRE of Scripture we appeal do IS important. Building DOCTRINE from the Psalms, or from Job can be very dangerous. Christ taught us to LOVE our enemies and pray for them, yet David prayed numerous imprecatory prayers in the Psalms. That needs to be dealt with,
Also, it is believed that David was saying he was CONCEIVED in sin--that his mother brought David forth SINFULLY, and that is part of David's appeal to the Lord to not be too harsh with him--that he was conceived in sin, hence that David SINNED should be no surprise to God, ESPECIALLY if his mother's sin was the same as Davids---sexual.
Also, it is believed that David was saying he was CONCEIVED in sin--that his mother brought David forth SINFULLY, and that is part of David's appeal to the Lord to not be too harsh with him--that he was conceived in sin, hence that David SINNED should be no surprise to God, ESPECIALLY if his mother's sin was the same as Davids---sexual.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
As I'm sure you'd guess - I agree. Similar to your tactic at the beginning of the thread, I wasn't making the entire Reformed argument for Total Inability (Depravity) in a single post. I did, however, endeavor to give an overview of the topic for those who may not be familiar with it.PAULESPINO wrote: First let's take a look at Psalms 51:5
Just as a long preface:
1. The Psalms are quoted more than any other book in the NT! Why else do the apostles quote Psalm 2 to demonstrate the Sonship of Christ? Why else does Christ himself cite 2:8-9 to demonstrate our future derived authority from the Son, in Revelation 2? Why does Paul cite Psalms 4:4 as proof that we can be angry, but we are not to sin in that anger? Is THAT not doctrinal, my friends? When Paul charges that both Jews and Greeks are under sin, in Romans 3: Does he quote all *but* the Psalms? Far, far from the truth! In that cornucopia of OT references - ALL but one are from the Psalms. Are we to say that the NT writers are trying to say that we are not to understand as doctrinally relevant, statements pulled directly, and contextually, from the Psalms? When Paul says in Romans 4, that David also speaks of the doctrine of imputed righteousness - is he really implying that David's statement is not a doctrinal statement - when he is using it as backing for his statement of that doctrine? In Romans 15:3, when Paul uses the statement "the reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.", to express Christ's humilty - is this to be non-doctrinal? When Hebrews says that Christ is our High Priest - on the basis of the Psalm that says He is our High Priest, in the order of Melchizedek, are we to reject that basis, since it lies directly in Psalms, and in no other place? I could go on. And on. and on! The very idea, friends, is absurd.
2. The Doctrine of God is upheld, in many of it's pillars, by the Psalms. What book in the Bible does more to establish the doctrine of God than Psalms? What other book upholds practically all of God's attributes within itself - save Psalms and, yes, Job!
Further, what does 2 Timothy tells us? "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
3. If the Psalms can be prophetical - can they not be doctrinal? (eg: John 19:24)
Let me be even more clear: The view which you are holding is akin to a man saying that the writings of Shakespeare are devoid on knowledge of the human condition - because what he writes is "poetic". Absurd!
So, Psalm 51:5.
Obviously, when speaking of Psalm 51, we look at the context. David, of course, is pouring out his heart to God in repentance and grief over his sins against God, as seen in verse 4.
The context of the Psalm is, indeed, sin. The direct subject of the Psalm is, of course, a particular set of *multiple* sins - but this does not preclude us from understanding David's prayer as theologically correct, or doctrinally correct. I highly doubt it would be a part of Scriptural canon as a psalm of repentance for sins if it were not also intended to express correct doctrine concerning sin. Especially given the fact that the verse before this one is used to exemplify the faithfulness and veracity of God's actions! (Romans 3:4)
David cannot be speaking of his parent's iniquity - they were a married couple, and we are given no reason to suspect that his parentage is of questionable repute, despite the carefully distanced "it is believed" claim to the contrary. Are we looking for plausible deniability, perhaps? Not to mention that his confession is concerning his blood guilt. David was guilty of the murder of Uriah, not just the theft of Uriah's wife. How does that fit into that theory? Was his mother also a murderer? His iniquity is his own. It is his from his formation, and in his infancy. The iniquity is not an action - or he would have spoken of it "my" sin, as he has multiple times before in this very passage.
As Gill says:
Further: 51:6 makes no sense without the parallel to 51:5, as man's nature without God - and man's new nature, with His Spirit's regeneration! With this sinful nature still eating away at his inmost being - he finds hope in the fact that God desires His truth to replace this corruption. For this purpose, follow his prayer, as he continues.Hence we learn the earliness of the corruption of nature; it is as soon as man is conceived and shapen; and that it is propagated from one to another by natural generation; and that it is the case of all men: for if this was the case of David, who was born of religious parents, was famous for his early piety, and from whose seed the Messiah sprung, it may well be concluded to be the case of all. And this corruption of nature is the fountain, source, and spring of all sin, secret and open, private and public; and is mentioned here not as an extenuation of David's actual transgressions, but as an aggravation of them; he having been, from his conception and formation, nothing else but a mass of sin, a lump of iniquity; and, in his evangelical repentance for them, he is led to take notice of and mourn over the corruption of his nature, from whence they arose.
He asks to be purified, washed, for God to change his grief to joy; to hide His face from his iniquities - and blot them out. Note carefully here, though. Create in me - what? A clean heart, O God. As opposed to what? What exactly is he asking for, here? A washing off of the dirt of sin? He asked for that already. The stains of sin to be blotted out? No, that's done, too. What, then? Instead of the corrupted spirit of flesh he is still struggling against - he wants a fully regenerate heart. A heart created anew. Interesting, is it not? I'm sure there will be quite a bit of explanation concerning this to follow - but let me encourage you to examine Scripture, not "it is believed", or "it's poetic". ALL Scripture is inspired by God, my friends, and is profitable for doctrine. In John 6:45, Jesus tells the people who grumble at his "hard saying" concerning the totality of the Father's perfect work in salvation - that "and they all shall be taught of God". While God Himself is teaching them. Is this not supposed to be doctrine, you still say? I can't see how we can see it so, when Scripture demonstrates otherwise. Hebrews, Romans, The Gospels... practically the entire New Testament is bursting with doctrinal statements from the Psalms. The sinfulness of man, without exception, is derived from the Psalms, and used as Paul's principal Scripture to support this fact, in Romans 3, as we have already seen. Are you truly prepared to cast out the doctrine of the non-exclusionary nature of man's sinfulness - for the sake of denying a statement which is, in fact, found in inspired Scripture? Deny more scripture, so as to escape the consequences of Scriptural doctrine? Or that certain Scriptures can provide doctrine? If you accept the statements in Romans 3 as doctrinal statements, as Paul uses them - yet refuse to accept the statements in Psalm 51, because you dislike the conclusion - I cannot stop you. I will, however, point out the inconsistency. Especially when the original question, as above, is both loaded and designed as a "trick question". One of the first things I learned in apologetics is to never trust a simple question with the answer implied in the question. It is not a conversation, unless the other side presents their positive case from the outset - which was certainly not the case in your question. By the wording, you obviously already had a response ready, and an opinion on the matter. It wasn't really a question - it was bait. Now we can both present fully positive cases for our own views, instead of simple refutations of the other, can we not? Let's not dance around the issues, please.
I'll get to Psalms 58:3, if this continues.
Just as a bit of turn-about...
Here are two (1 is complex, admittedly - the second is not) questions in return:
1. In Arminian theology, or whatever you personally call your own system of theology, what differentiates the eternal state of a. the unborn child, b. the infant, c. a 5-6 year old child, and d. a teenager - and what is the Biblical basis for such a differentiation?
2. Do you have children?
Bonus answer: Are you telling me that new born babies can distinguish the difference between right and wrong?
No. This is a category error - because this implies that the ability of any man to distinguish the "rightness" or the "wrongness" of the deed determines it's moral culpability. God is the standard, source, and arbiter of righteousness, or it's inverse. So, in stating the question this way, you make identical the responsibility for the act with the knowledge of the moral state of culpability in regards to the act. Ignorance is not an excuse for bad behavior, nor does knowledge confer culpability, while ignorance is, supposedly, bliss. it doesn't work that way.
But, once again - God mercies whom He desires. This is the essence of the Reformed position on children on salvation - the eternal state of a child is in the same hands that all eternal states are in. In hands of God. I can think of no better hands in which I could think to place my 6 children.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
Hi J,
1) First of all you keep on bringing up Psalm 51:5. I just finished explaining from my previous post as to why Psalms 51:5 can not be used as a proof text for man's total depravity. You can not interpret 51:5 literally because it will collide with the meaning of Psalm 58:3 Therefore using these passages as a proof text will be wrong.
2) I don't have problems with creating a doctrine from the Bible if it is a correct doctrine. Again as I mentioned we can not used 51:5 and 58:3 as a proof text because there will be a problem if you will interpret it literally.
1) First of all you keep on bringing up Psalm 51:5. I just finished explaining from my previous post as to why Psalms 51:5 can not be used as a proof text for man's total depravity. You can not interpret 51:5 literally because it will collide with the meaning of Psalm 58:3 Therefore using these passages as a proof text will be wrong.
2) I don't have problems with creating a doctrine from the Bible if it is a correct doctrine. Again as I mentioned we can not used 51:5 and 58:3 as a proof text because there will be a problem if you will interpret it literally.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
J, the question why so simple and yet you made it difficult.No. This is a category error - because this implies that the ability of any man to distinguish the "rightness" or the "wrongness" of the deed determines it's moral culpability. God is the standard, source, and arbiter of righteousness, or it's inverse. So, in stating the question this way, you make identical the responsibility for the act with the knowledge of the moral state of culpability in regards to the act. Ignorance is not an excuse for bad behavior, nor does knowledge confer culpability, while ignorance is, supposedly, bliss. it doesn't work that way.
Sure, God is our reference for all moral decisions we make.
The reason people know the difference between right and wrong is because God taught us.
Again the question was about babies whether they know the difference between right and wrong and not grown men.
I can assure you that you can ask every single person out on the street and they will be able to understand the question and right away give you an answer.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
.But, once again - God mercies whom He desires. This is the essence of the Reformed position on children on salvation - the eternal state of a child is in the same hands that all eternal states are in. In hands of God. I can think of no better hands in which I could think to place my 6 children
It IS NOT the "Reformed position". It is the Calvinist position. Reformed and Calvinism ARE NOT synonymous. Calvinists really need to stop their little games, like the above, which is an historical fraud, or like when they call their system "the Doctrines of Grace", thereby automatically assuming what needs to be proven, and condemning all other views as outside the doctrines of grace. This is wrong.
Next, seeing the MAJORITY OF THE PLANET is going to Hell, and if Calvinism is true, that means God reprobated most of mankind for his "glory", then the odds are that at least FOUR of your six children will burn in Hell forever and ever, and there is NOTHING you can do about it. You can teach them the Bible till you are blue in the face, it matters not. Their eternal destiny is out of your hands and theirs, it has been decided for them. If, God forbid, any were to die now, if they were not elect, to Hell they would go. You see, it matters now WHEN the reprobate die, whether in old age or infancy--it matters not. If they die as infants, these little ones will burn in Hell forever without reprieve. O how "glorious" this system is.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: