----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris B. McKinney" <cmck@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 5:50 PM
Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] RE: pagan children called 'innocents'???
> > -----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
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>
>
>
>