> -----Original Message----- > From: John Reisinger [mailto:jreisinger@...] > Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 8:14 AM > > ---- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris B. McKinney" <cmck@...> > Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] RE: pagan children called 'innocents'??? > > > > JGR said: The heart of Romans 5:12-14 is that God's judgment, > > > evidenced in death, > > > rests on an infant because of his union with Adam. The infant is > actually > > > guilty in the sight of God and worthy of death the day they are > > > born. Romans > > > 5:12-14 means beyond question that the infant is responsible to > > > God for its > > > sin nature because it is on the ground of the sin nature that > the infant > > > dies. > > > > > > Job 4:7 "Remember now, who ever perished being innocent? Or > > > where were the upright ever cut off?" (NKJ) > > > > Chris responds: Except for Jesus, you mean? He may have experienced > God's judgment, but he was still innocent. > > > > Or did he inherit the sinful nature required to deserve God's judgment > > through Mary? > > > JGR: I do not believe that Christ "perished." He indeed died under the > judgment of God but instead of perishing he destroyed death. He did not > inherit a sinful nature from any place including from Mary. He did take on > himself HUMAN nature from Mary but not a SINFUL nature. He had sin imputed > to him but never had either a sinful nature and actual personal sin. > > Some one has well said. "There is a difference between sin IN us > and sin ON > us. We have sin IN (a sinful nature) in us and also have sin ON > us be actual > transgression. Christ had sin ON him by imputation but He never had sin IN > him. I find it hard to understand what this quote can mean. I'm not sure if its because of what I think "sin" means or if its because of trying to understand "in" and "on" with regards to it. Hmm. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Reisinger [mailto:jreisinger@...] > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 9:10 AM > > JGR: No child of Adam was every "innocent." A child does not become a > guilty sinner worthy of death when he supposedly commits his first sin at > the mythical "age of accountability." The infant is already, at the moment > of his birth, a guilty sinner worthy of death OR ELSE HE COULD > NOT POSSIBLY > DIE! This is Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-19. > Not one single child of Adam was ever "inncoent" for a single > second. We simply must understand Romans 5:12-19 and start the discussion > at that point. Paul is specifically dealing with the subject of > "Why do all > men, including infants die?" And he does not give one answer for > an adult's > death and another answer for the infant's death. An infant and > and an adult > both die for the same reason. They are both guilty sinners who DESERVE to > die or else they would not die! Nor does Paul give one answer for Jesus' death and another answer for someone else's death. And Jesus did die. > Nobody, > inclding infants, dies who is not a guilty sinner that deserves > to die! That is a Biblcal fact. And your argument is that Jesus' guilt was imputed to him, so that he came to deserve death? > To attempt to get infants into heaven on the ground that they are > inncoent is a clear denial of Romans 5:12-19 and the doctrine of the > imputation of both Adam's sin and guilt as well as denial of Adam's > universal, representative headship. Universal, you mean, except in regard to Jesus? > This does not mean that an infant cannot be saved but it does mean > he a guilty sinner the day he is born and therefore must have the benifits > of the atonement applied to him in order to be saved. If infants are in > heaven, and I believe they are even though I cannot positively without > question prove it, they are "saved and blood washed" infants and not > "innocent" infants who somehow escaped unscathed from their heritage in > Adam. I'm trying to reconcile different elements from your understanding here. Here's what I'm reading: 1. All humans have a human nature 2. All humans except for Jesus (and Adam?) also have a sin nature 3. Adam's sin, and the guilt thereof, are imputed to all humans including Jesus 4. It is a Biblical fact that anyone who dies is a guilty sinner who deserves to die. 5. Jesus did not commit any sin. 6. Some babies die before committing any sin. My questions are in comparing Jesus to infants who don't get a chance to sin; it appears you are arguing that the only difference between Jesus and the infant is that Jesus doesn't have their sin nature. Is the sin nature, then, the ingredient that keeps the infants from being "innocent"? If I understand you correctly, then I have to say that it seems some are using one definition of "innocent" ("not having sinned") while others are using another definition ("not having the sin nature"). My problem with your perspective, as you might have guessed, is that "sin nature" is as much a product of GNC as "covenant of grace/covenant of works." It seems to do that the idea of a "sin nature" is premised on the ideas that people who "seem" to be innocent (e.g. infants, mentally handicapped) die, and that one can only die if one is guilty, and that they are therefore guilty because of Adam (Rom. 5:18). But the passage also says that "death spread to all men because all men sinned" (v. 12). If this text is taken in the way you say ("he does not give one answer for Jesus and another answer for everyone else"), then Jesus must have died because Jesus sinned. Well, nobody here's buying that conclusion. The text also says "one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men" (v. 18). You are not unaware of the problem here, for you argue that the "all" means "all who are represented." So the unelect are not part of the "all" who receive life. Why not posit, then, that infants are not part of the "all" to whom are imputed Adam's sin? Chris McKinney