automatically saved by birth

[Classik]

Why are we not automatically saved by birth, when or if our parents are true Christians and have done the family/land deliverance thing? Doesn't this make sense? Or is the sin nature retained in man even after being saved?

 

[OzSpen]

Why are we not automatically saved by birth, when or if our parents are true Christians and have done the family/land deliverance thing? Doesn't this make sense? Or is the sin nature retained in man even after being saved?

That's because of our natural condition from birth. The biblical evidence according to Psalm 51:5 (ESV) is: 'Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me'. According to Eph 2:2 (ESV), all people are 'sons of disobedience'. and Eph 2:3 (ESV) confirms that we are all 'by nature children of wrath'.

Human beings fell into sin because of Adam's sin. Romans 5:12 (ESV) states the human problem clearly, 'Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned'.

Is the sinful nature retained after salvation? Yes, it is! See the article, 'Does a Christian have two natures?' (Got Questions Ministries)

Paul, after conversion, battled with his sinful nature. See Romans 7 (ESV).

Oz

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Or is the sin nature retained in man even after being saved?

No born again person has the old sin nature.
What they have is the old body of flesh that used to be in bondage to the sin nature; a freedom from bondage which we are realizing more and more, through knowledge, as we grow up into the full stature of Christ.

 

[Wrg1405]

No born again person has the old sin nature.
What they have is the old body of flesh that used to be in bondage to the sin nature; a freedom from bondage which we are realizing more and more, through knowledge, as we grow up into the full stature of Christ.

I have often try to get my mind around this. I used to be really confused because when reading the NLT, the word flesh is replaced with nature unlike the NKJV, so NLT = Sinful Nature and NKJV = Sinful flesh.

So here is my confusion, if I do not have the old sin nature what do I have?
If I don't have the old sin nature why do I still sin? Romans 7 confuses me but gives me hope but I just cannot get straight in my mind why I still sin and where does it come from.

I don't full understand the concept of sin residing in the flesh so when I sin it's me not me but what's in my flesh.

Any chance you can help this thicky out

 

[th1b.taylor]

Why are we not automatically saved by birth, when or if our parents are true Christians and have done the family/land deliverance thing? Doesn't this make sense? Or is the sin nature retained in man even after being saved?

You, I, and everyone else are born sinners and without repentance, there is no forgiveness! That, alone, eliminates being born Saved.

 

[Wrg1405]

You, I, and everyone else are born sinners and without repentance, there is no forgiveness! That, alone, eliminates being born Saved.

What's your thoughts concerning young people who die or youn babies?

 

[th1b.taylor]

What's your thoughts concerning young people who die or youn babies?

Very good question. The Bible teaches us that there is the age of accountability. In Acts 17:31 and Romans 14:12 we see it pointed to but though I have read and reread and reread the Bible I cannot find where God has marked to be at 14 nor at 31.

I am very hard put to test this with scripture, but with that said I am lead by the Spirit to understand that, although children are not, of any necessity Saved, they are Safe until they realize they are sinners, i.e. reached the Age Of Accountability.

I was so determined I searched my commentaries and the works of Josephus where I discovered the Jew thought the age of thirty was the mark. But what about the fifty year old with the mind of a ten-year-old? This poor man will not be saved?

I do not believe that! (I know one Pastor that was saved when he was six and now, in his fifties he is still faithful. I believe the Age Of Accountability has more to do with the mind than the years aged.

So the children, until they meet their AOA, they are safe. FOOTNOTE: None of this is Doctrine to become dogmatic about, this is nothing more than the opinion of an old man on his death bed.

 

[Wrg1405]

Very good question. The Bible teaches us that there is the age of accountability. In Acts 17:31 and Romans 14:12 we see it pointed to but though I have read and reread and reread the Bible I cannot find where God has marked to be at 14 nor at 31.

I am very hard put to test this with scripture, but with that said I am lead by the Spirit to understand that, although children are not, of any necessity Saved, they are Safe until they realize they are sinners, i.e. reached the Age Of Accountability.

I was so determined I searched my commentaries and the works of Josephus where I discovered the Jew thought the age of thirty was the mark. But what about the fifty year old with the mind of a ten-year-old? This poor man will not be saved?

I do not believe that! (I know one Pastor that was saved when he was six and now, in his fifties he is still faithful. I believe the Age Of Accountability has more to do with the mind than the years aged.

So the children, until they meet their AOA, they are safe. FOOTNOTE: None of this is Doctrine to become dogmatic about, this is nothing more than the opinion of an old man on his death bed.

Well presented Mr Taylor. I agree with you that it's nothing to get dogmatic about. I've read many a post where people in fact are dogmatic even to the extent that if you don't accept Jesus before you die then that's it, your in hell no matter the age. They discard AOA, and there are others that beleive in a AOA but in terms of age and not mental capacity.

I'm with you in that AOA has more to do with the mind than years.

Old man, thanks for your opinion and your wisdom.

 

[stovebolts]

That's because of our natural condition from birth. The biblical evidence according to Psalm 51:5 (ESV) is: 'Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me'. According to Eph 2:2 (ESV), all people are 'sons of disobedience'. and Eph 2:3 (ESV) confirms that we are all 'by nature children of wrath'.

Human beings fell into sin because of Adam's sin. Romans 5:12 (ESV) states the human problem clearly, 'Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned'.

Is the sinful nature retained after salvation? Yes, it is! See the article, 'Does a Christian have two natures?' (Got Questions Ministries)

Paul, after conversion, battled with his sinful nature. See Romans 7 (ESV).

Oz

Not to be argumentative, but psalms 51 states "brought forth in inequity" and, " in sin my mother conceived me."
The text does not say that our natural condition from birth is sinful. It simply says we are born into a sinful world.

Psalms 139 says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made....

Yes, we have a sin nature.... We do things we should not do, and we don't do the things we should do.

Adam and Eve had the same problem.

 

[OzSpen]

No born again person has the old sin nature.
What they have is the old body of flesh that used to be in bondage to the sin nature; a freedom from bondage which we are realizing more and more, through knowledge, as we grow up into the full stature of Christ.

Jethro,

That's not what Romans 7 (ESV) teaches us, where Paul demonstrates the internal battle that even mature Christians endure. Why does Paul do what he doesn't want to do? He states that it is because of 'sin that dwells within me' (Rom 7:20 ESV).

Yes, he has God's law in his 'inner being' (Rom 7:22 ESV) but what about 'another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members' (Rom 7:23 ESV)?

The Christian will never be able to get away from the two laws at work within him/her. We nave the new nature but the old nature/law is still within us and Paul knew this battle. So do I.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Not to be argumentative, but psalms 51 states "brought forth in inequity" and, " in sin my mother conceived me."
The text does not say that our natural condition from birth is sinful. It simply says we are born into a sinful world.

Psalms 139 says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made....

Yes, we have a sin nature.... We do things we should not do, and we don't do the things we should do.

Adam and Eve had the same problem.

Stove,

Yours is a common objection, but it is not supported by the text of Psalm 51:5 (ESV).

Hebrew scholar, Dr H C Leupold, provided this exposition of Psalm 51:5,

'After the total vindication of God there follows a statement of the total indictment of man. Or it might be thought of as explaining to some extent why man does such things as he, the writer, did. Not, indeed, in the sense of minimizing his guilt, or in the sense of claiming for himself a kind of unfortunate determinism which victimized him. The statement, "Lo, I was brought forth in iniquity," is a classic formulation of what we commonly designate as the doctrine of original sin. In effect it says, How can I or any other man do anything other than sin, seeing that from the very moment of the origin of our life the taint of sin is upon us? Mark, this is not spoken by way of excuse or palliation of this grievous misdeed but by way of a matter of fact explanation.

'The same holds true of the parallel statement: "And in sin did my mother conceive me." The writer does not intend to blame his mother for his sinful state. It never entered his mind to express a thought such as: the very act that led to my conception was a sin. The psalmist is rather, merely indicating that he is in that common stream of mankind where all, from the moment of birth, are sinners. Or to reformulate the thought, the writer is bewailing his own sinfulness, not that of his parents. The mother happens to be mentioned instead of the parents because of her obviously more prominent part in the matter of birth. This statement is in line with other classic utterances of the Old Testament such as: Gen. 8:21; Job 14:4; 15:14; 25:4' (Leupold 1959:402-403).​

Nice try Stove, but it is not supported by the evidence from Psalm 51:5. The text confirms that all human beings have a natural sinful condition from birth. It does not say that we are born into a sinful world. That is a view contrary to what the text states.

Oz

Works consulted
Leupold, H C 1959. The Psalms. London: Evangelical Press (copyright 1959, The Wartburg Press, assigned to Augsburg Publishing House, 1961).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I have often try to get my mind around this. I used to be really confused because when reading the NLT, the word flesh is replaced with nature unlike the NKJV, so NLT = Sinful Nature and NKJV = Sinful flesh.

Yes, my 1975 Zondervan NIV has 'sin nature' in it too, instead of flesh. So I always thought we still had a sin nature too.

So here is my confusion, if I do not have the old sin nature what do I have?

Unglorified flesh. That's what you still have.

I'm off to Kirk. I'll share some more later.
I do want it to be understood that I do not think this is a hill worth dying for. Just some stuff we can talk about as Christians, which I likes to do.

 

[stovebolts]

Stove,

Yours is a common objection, but it is not supported by the text of Psalm 51:5 (ESV).

Hebrew scholar, Dr H C Leupold, provided this exposition of Psalm 51:5,

'After the total vindication of God there follows a statement of the total indictment of man. Or it might be thought of as explaining to some extent why man does such things as he, the writer, did. Not, indeed, in the sense of minimizing his guilt, or in the sense of claiming for himself a kind of unfortunate determinism which victimized him. The statement, "Lo, I was brought forth in iniquity," is a classic formulation of what we commonly designate as the doctrine of original sin. In effect it says, How can I or any other man do anything other than sin, seeing that from the very moment of the origin of our life the taint of sin is upon us? Mark, this is not spoken by way of excuse or palliation of this grievous misdeed but by way of a matter of fact explanation.

'The same holds true of the parallel statement: "And in sin did my mother conceive me." The writer does not intend to blame his mother for his sinful state. It never entered his mind to express a thought such as: the very act that led to my conception was a sin. The psalmist is rather, merely indicating that he is in that common stream of mankind where all, from the moment of birth, are sinners. Or to reformulate the thought, the writer is bewailing his own sinfulness, not that of his parents. The mother happens to be mentioned instead of the parents because of her obviously more prominent part in the matter of birth. This statement is in line with other classic utterances of the Old Testament such as: Gen. 8:21; Job 14:4; 15:14; 25:4' (Leupold 1959:402-403).​

Nice try Stove, but it is not supported by the evidence from Psalm 51:5. The text confirms that all human beings have a natural sinful condition from birth. It does not say that we are born into a sinful world. That is a view contrary to what the text states.

Oz

Works consulted
Leupold, H C 1959. The Psalms. London: Evangelical Press (copyright 1959, The Wartburg Press, assigned to Augsburg Publishing House, 1961).

If that's what you wish to believe, then believe it.
I myself don't buy into it.

Take care

 

[Christ_empowered]

I was under the impression that being born into sin was a standard Christian belief. Default position is Hell, then you reach up and out to Christ to be saved, you die and are resurrected with Christ, and then the new you (less you, more Jesus over time) is headed for Heaven.

I was taught that sinners are saved and become saints, imperfect Christians who sin but are not dominated and defined by a sin nature. Put off the old, put on the new. Its an ongoing process that requires a lot of cooperation with The Holy Spirit.

I don't get the age of accountability, honestly. I think there are so many variables that come into play that, like Bill Taylor said, one can't really put down some random age and say "yup, age of accountability right there." For instance, I was diagnosed with a developmental disorder as a teenager. Long story, but...I think one reason The Lord was so patient with me before I finally got saved and has been so extraordinarily good to me after getting saved is because I was so delayed, in terms of maturation and such. I'm not the only one, and I think The Lord is often more merciful than we give Him credit for.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I was under the impression that being born into sin was a standard Christian belief. Default position is Hell, then you reach up and out to Christ to be saved, you die and are resurrected with Christ, and then the new you (less you, more Jesus over time) is headed for Heaven.

I was taught that sinners are saved and become saints, imperfect Christians who sin but are not dominated and defined by a sin nature. Put off the old, put on the new. Its an ongoing process that requires a lot of cooperation with The Holy Spirit.

I don't get the age of accountability, honestly. I think there are so many variables that come into play that, like Bill Taylor said, one can't really put down some random age and say "yup, age of accountability right there." For instance, I was diagnosed with a developmental disorder as a teenager. Long story, but...I think one reason The Lord was so patient with me before I finally got saved and has been so extraordinarily good to me after getting saved is because I was so delayed, in terms of maturation and such. I'm not the only one, and I think The Lord is often more merciful than we give Him credit for.

You're in good company, CE. I ran from God for better than 23 years and was not saved until just days before my 45th.

 

[OzSpen]

If that's what you wish to believe, then believe it.
I myself don't buy into it.

Take care

Stove,

I follow what the Scriptures state and I expounded that for you, with the help of the exposition of Hebrew specialist, H C Leupold.

It has zero to do with what I wish to believe. It has everything to do with Scripture which tells us that human beings are sinful from the time of birth in Psalm 51:5 (ESV). But you refuse to deal with the exegesis of this text, brushing it aside with a flippant, 'I myself don't buy into it. Take care'. That's not exegesis of the biblical text.

Another Hebrew exegete, Dr William S Plumer, calls the view that you are promoting, 'trifling with sacred things'. He wrote of Psalm 51:5 (ESV):

5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity ; and in sin did my mother conceive me. That the doctrine of original and universal depravity was taught from the first is clear from Gen. v. 3 ; vi. 5 ; viii. 21 ; Job xiv. 4 ; xv. 14 ; xxv. 4. That David embraced it is clear from his writings, v. 5 ; Ps. Iviii. 3. David is not excusing but condemning himself There is no blot on the character of his father Jesse. By the Holy Ghost he twice informs us of the piety of his mother, Ps. Ixxxvi. Ifi ; cxvi. 16. To say that David is here merely publishing the sins of one or both of his parents is trifling with sacred things. Even the Council of Trent, Bellarmine and Bossuet maintain the doctrine of hereditary depravity. The doctrine is taught in the symbols of all the purest churches in the world, and by all the best commentators. Commonly all, who hold the orthodox doctrine on this subject, cite this verse in proof. It is very pertinent. David is humbling himself and repenting before God. In doing so, he renounces all merit, confesses his actual sins, and then traces them up to their fruitful source, " birth-sin," as the church of England styles it. Calvin : " David here refers to original sin with the view of aggravating his guilt, acknowledging that he had not contracted this or that sin for the first time lately, but had been born into the world with the seed of every iniquity (Plumer 1975:557, emphasis added).​

Oz

Works consulted

Plumer, W S 1975. Psalms: A critical and expository commentary with doctrinal and practical remarks. Edinburgh/Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust (first published 1867).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Why does Paul do what he doesn't want to do?

Because in Romans 7 he is still the legalistic Pharisee seeking to please God that he was before he was born again. Just because he wanted to please God in chapter 7 doesn't mean he had to be a born again Christian. Many Jews were zealous for God prior to the gospel revelation of Jesus Christ:

"31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law (of faith--see context). 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.
2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own" (Romans 8:31-32 NASB, Romans 9:2-3 NASB italics in original, parenthesis mine)

You don't have to be born again to want to please God and live for him. But a lack of knowledge about the righteousness that comes by faith will keep you in the deceitful bondage of fallen flesh. If you're born again, it's your flesh talking. If you're not born again, you still have the Adamic programming at work in you keeping you in bondage to fallen flesh--like how a husband rules over his wife through the power of a marriage license, whether the wife likes it or not (Romans 7:1-6 NASB).

 

[stovebolts]

Stove,

I follow what the Scriptures state and I expounded that for you, with the help of the exposition of Hebrew specialist, H C Leupold.

It has zero to do with what I wish to believe. It has everything to do with Scripture which tells us that human beings are sinful from the time of birth in Psalm 51:5 (ESV). But you refuse to deal with the exegesis of this text, brushing it aside with a flippant, 'I myself don't buy into it. Take care'. That's not exegesis of the biblical text.

Another Hebrew exegete, Dr William S Plumer, calls the view that you are promoting, 'trifling with sacred things'. He wrote of Psalm 51:5 (ESV):

5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity ; and in sin did my mother conceive me. That the doctrine of original and universal depravity was taught from the first is clear from Gen. v. 3 ; vi. 5 ; viii. 21 ; Job xiv. 4 ; xv. 14 ; xxv. 4. That David embraced it is clear from his writings, v. 5 ; Ps. Iviii. 3. David is not excusing but condemning himself There is no blot on the character of his father Jesse. By the Holy Ghost he twice informs us of the piety of his mother, Ps. Ixxxvi. Ifi ; cxvi. 16. To say that David is here merely publishing the sins of one or both of his parents is trifling with sacred things. Even the Council of Trent, Bellarmine and Bossuet maintain the doctrine of hereditary depravity. The doctrine is taught in the symbols of all the purest churches in the world, and by all the best commentators. Commonly all, who hold the orthodox doctrine on this subject, cite this verse in proof. It is very pertinent. David is humbling himself and repenting before God. In doing so, he renounces all merit, confesses his actual sins, and then traces them up to their fruitful source, " birth-sin," as the church of England styles it. Calvin : " David here refers to original sin with the view of aggravating his guilt, acknowledging that he had not contracted this or that sin for the first time lately, but had been born into the world with the seed of every iniquity (Plumer 1975:557, emphasis added).​

Oz

Works consulted

Plumer, W S 1975. Psalms: A critical and expository commentary with doctrinal and practical remarks. Edinburgh/Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust (first published 1867).

Seriously, you don't need to justify your belief to me. it's OK, you can believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe. We both have our own reasons backd by scripture and back by theologians that we both admire and trust.

This isn't a debate forum and I have little desire to debate. In fairness, it's not a bad thing to present both views.

Which brings me to this point, have you studied any other teachings that support my view with an open mind, or have you only been taught how to discredit my view and never really for the purpose of knowing?

 

[OzSpen]

Because in Romans 7 he is still the legalistic Pharisee seeking to please God that he was before he was born again. Just because he wanted to please God in chapter 7 doesn't mean he had to be a born again Christian. Many Jews were zealous for God prior to the gospel revelation of Jesus Christ:

"31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law (of faith--see context). 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.
2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own" (Romans 8:31-32 NASB, Romans 9:2-3 NASB italics in original, parenthesis mine)

You don't have to be born again to want to please God and live for him. But a lack of knowledge about the righteousness that comes by faith will keep you in the deceitful bondage of fallen flesh. If you're born again, it's your flesh talking. If you're not born again, you still have the Adamic programming at work in you keeping you in bondage to fallen flesh--like how a husband rules over his wife through the power of a marriage license, whether the wife likes it or not (Romans 7:1-6 NASB).

Jethro,

You claim you don't have to be born again to want to please God and live for him. Frankly, that's untrue. The fact is: 'No one understands; no one seeks for God' (Rom 3:11 ESV). NO unbeliever wants to please God and live for Him. They do not seek God. How can they when they are rebels against God? Rom 3:18 (ESV) confirms, 'There is no fear of God before their eyes'.

For you to conclude that someone who is not born again can want to please God and live for him, you are reading a different Bible to the one I read.

A Christian has God's law in his 'inner being' (Rom 7:22 ESV) but also has 'another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members' (Rom 7:23 ESV)?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Seriously, you don't need to justify your belief to me. it's OK, you can believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe. We both have our own reasons backd by scripture and back by theologians that we both admire and trust.

This isn't a debate forum and I have little desire to debate. In fairness, it's not a bad thing to present both views.

Which brings me to this point, have you studied any other teachings that support my view with an open mind, or have you only been taught how to discredit my view and never really for the purpose of knowing?

Mate, I have a PhD in NT (dissertation only in the British system) so I've HAD to be an independent researcher with peers who scrupulously examined what I wrote. Of course I've examined Ps 51:5 from your perspective. No scholar worth his salt would refuse to do so.

The problem in your discussion with me is that you do not interact with the content of what I write. It's as though I've wasted my time presenting the evidence and you are silent with regard to the content. That's called a red herring fallacy.

Bye,
Oz