If sin is not imputed without the law, how can some claim that babies and children die because Adam's sin is imputed to them?

[posthuman]

you are asking whether omniscient foreknowledge is causation?

ima say no.
no, it is not.

nevertheless:

Romans 9:22-23​

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory​

​

please note again that in out present context, every physical body dies - every plant, every corporal counterpart of every nephesh chayaah.

... but the soul of everyone who believes has eternal life, and every physical body is resurrected whether to eternal death or eternal life.

 

[Mouse_Cheeks]

We are born dead in trespass and sin. Our bodies eventually die.

That is not what @posthuman said.

It's only a matter of time. That's why believers are given a new, incorruptible body. That is because we inherit the fallen nature of Adam. Lord Jesus did not trace His ancestry to Adam.

True,he traced it on the matrilineal side to his mother Mary, who was highly favored by God and of the line of David.

His Father in human terms is God. Lord Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. His physical body was not subject to sin and death.

True. He was not subject to sin. He was born sinless. And stayed that way. Though there are those who insist Jesus was born with a sin nature.

His body did die on the cross when he gave up his Holy Spirit and commended it to the Father.

But for the cross, Lord Jesus would still be with us.

All according to God's plan.
Jesus was born to die on the cross.

But His body would not be the glorified body that He had after His resurrection.

Jesus was always God in flesh. His body was more alight with the manifestation of God after his resurrection.

This is how he could enter the upper room after resurrection without using the door.

 

[posthuman]

I didn't deny it. This is your second reaction to one of my posts that doesn't seem to follow logically.

as i said please forgive me if i speak to the general conversation when i reply, perhaps not necessarily to your specific viewpoint.

there is a lot there, that seems superficially to avoid any direct connection between David's individual sin and the real physical consequence it had on the nation he sat on the throne of. i think it best to remain keenly aware that the scripture does not ascribe the judgement visited upon the people in this instance to either an agreement that the census should be taken or some years-prior lack of faith. rather, the scripture directly attributes these consequences to David's actions.

it's the context, again, not of 'generational curse' but of the alternate righteousness or unrighteousness of the federal head directly affecting the wellbeing of the whole.

for this we should praise God, that the head of our body is not a man - - someone called pope?? - - but Christ Himself, God in the flesh!

not entirely a reaction to your post bro, a continuation of the conversation as an whole

 

[posthuman]

That is not what @posthuman said.

eh post definitely said our bodies definitely die and death is definitely a result of sin.

post's question remains if we have sinless living souls experiencing physical death plz explain what huh how why??

((see Genesis 3, Romans 5 & 8 - - it's actually not hard.))

 

[Mouse_Cheeks]

I didn't deny it. This is your second reaction to one of my posts that doesn't seem to follow logically.

Something to maybe assist understanding the Census issue.

"As to why God was angry at David, in those times, a man only had the right to count or number what belonged to him. Israel did not belong to David; Israel belonged to God. In Exodus 30:12 God told Moses, “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them.” It was up to God to command a census, and if David counted he should only have done it at God’s command, receiving a ransom to “atone” for the counting."



https://www.gotquestions.org/dispensation-of-Innocence.html

 

[posthuman]

Jesus was always God in flesh. His body was more alight with the manifestation of God after his resurrection.

one more question for you, oh man so much more worthy thou canst not dein to answer a wretch such as i,,,,


if Christ is indeed never not God, and in Him is indeed not, nor ever was any sin,

.... exactly why would God Himself be "more aligned with God" ((your words not mine)) after resurrecting than before?

((i have taken the liberty of interpreting your clear spelling mistakes; please elucidate them if i have guessed your intentions incorrectly))

 

[posthuman]

BTW @Mouse_Cheeks yes i am pokinatcha.

'because he first pokinatch me'

 

[PaulThomson]

As always, we need to know what the scriptures say about the subject in total, not cherry pick one scripture to make a point. It is stated in psalm 51:5 that David was born in trespass and sin. How could David sin as a newborn?

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

You need to demonstrate that the phrase "I was brought forth in iniquity" means "brought forth with iniquity in me" rather than "I was brought forth into an iniquitous environment. I was brought forth in a hospital, but I was not born with a hospital in me,

You need to demonstrate that "my mother conceived me in sin" means "I had sin in me when my mother conceived me" rather than "my mother conceived in a sinful environment, or under sinful circumstances."
My mother may have conceived me in a hotel, or in utero, or in passion, but these do not mean that I had a hotel in me, or a uterus in me, or passion in me when I was conceived.

You need to demonstrate that David's words make more sense interpreted your way, rather than my way.

The same accusation was leveled against Jesus, John 9:34.

Jhn 9:34 They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” And they cast him out.
You need to demonstrate that the Pharisees did not mean "You are the product of non-kosher extra-marital sex." If they were saying that everyone is born sinful, why would that disqualify Jesus from teaching them, but leave them qualified to teach others? Surely, they were also born in sins, if that is the meaning.

Ephesians 2:1 and Colossians 2:13 state that people are dead in sin until they are born again.(/QUOTE]

Eph 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,
Eph 2:2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,
Eph 2:3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

By the language highlighted above, Paul seems here to be referring to sins committed by his audience, not sins inherited from forebears at conception or birth.

We do not die as a result of committing a sin. We die because death is lodged in us as a result of Adam's disobedience, 1 Corinthians 15:22.

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all are dying, (ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, present active indicative) even so in Christ all shall be made alive (ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται, future passive indicative).
1Co 15:23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

All were in Adam genetically when Adam walked the earth. Any descendant of Adam was in Adam, and may be described as being "in Adam". Likewise, all those imparted with Jesus' Spirit to become born again are "in Christ" and will be resurrected in a physical body alike in nature to His own physical body. This text does not say all are born sinful.

Adam's death was not physical. He lived nearly 1,000 years. But it is obvious that there was a separation between God and Adam after Adam disobeyed. God did not reject Adam. Adam hid from God. And this is true of all mankind. You do not have to teach a child to rebel. It's in its nature.

Gen 2:17
“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. (מוֹת תָּמוּת infinitive absolute + qal imperfect)”

Adam was told "In the day you eat of it, to die you shall be dying." This expression does not indicate immediate death, but a gradually dying leading to death. The same grammatical structure is used in other places in scripture and is translated as "shall surely X" where it obviously does not mean an immediate outcome, but the beginning of a gradual outcome. So, Adam was told that In the day you eat of it you will begin dying and will eventually die." We could say it idiomatically as " In the day you eat of it, your days will be numbered."

Compare Gen 18:18 “since Abraham shall surely become (הָיוֹ יִהְיֶה To become he shall be becoming, Infinitive absolute + qal imperfect) a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

Romans 2 states how those without the law still sin and come under God's judgement. No one is born knowing the law. All are born dead in trespass and sin.

Rom 2:12 For as many as (ἥμαρτον ἀνόμως) will also perish without law, and as many as sinned in the law (ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον) will be judged by the law

Rom 2:25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law (παραβάτην νόμου), your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
Rom 2:27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law (παραβάτην νόμου)?

Those without the Mosaic law sin by falling short (hamartanO) of the glory God made it possible for us to walk in. Those with the Mosaic Law sin by transgressing (parapiptO) that Law.
So yes, those without the law still sin in the hamartanO sense, but not in the parapiptO sense, according to Adam's sin.

I do not believe that those who die in infancy are rejected by God. There is an age of responsibility when people know the difference between good and evil. Up until then, God accepts the innocent because of the sacrifice of Jesus.

God does not reckon hamartia, falling short of His glory, to us. So, the child is innocent, until they start breaking laws they know are from God. God accounts our transgressions (paraptOma)

 

[Mouse_Cheeks]

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

You need to demonstrate that the phrase "I was brought forth in iniquity" means "brought forth with iniquity in me" rather than "I was brought forth into an iniquitous environment. I was brought forth in a hospital, but I was not born with a hospital in me,

You need to demonstrate that "my mother conceived me in sin" means "I had sin in me when my mother conceived me" rather than "my mother conceived in a sinful environment, or under sinful circumstances."
My mother may have conceived me in a hotel, or in utero, or in passion, but these do not mean that I had a hotel in me, or a uterus in me, or passion in me when I was conceived.

You need to demonstrate that David's words make more sense interpreted your way, rather than my way.

I wanted to address that part of your post.

David's saying about his being conceived in sin is an observation of himself as pertains to his mother. He isnt saying this of the whole human race.

He also isn't condemning his birth as sin when we read him praise his conception in Psalm 139:13-14.

"Some facts concerning David and his mother


David had two half-sisters (1 Chron. 2:13-16), and their father was not Jesse but Nahash (2 Sam. 17:25) who was an Ammonite king (1 Sam. 11:1). David’s mother might have been a second wife of Jesse. Perhaps the first wife of Jesse was considered superior to his second wife, because this would explain why David’s half brothers viewed themselves as superior to David and why David was not called before Samuel among the other sons – as he was possibly viewed as an illegitimate child (1 Sam. 16:11). We can speculate further that perhaps David’s mother was not married to Jesse when she became pregnant, or maybe she was still the concubine of, or married to Nahash when she conceived David. Moreover, we can’t rule out that it might be as per this story, reminding us about Jacob and Leah + her sister Rachel. If this story is applicable, then Jesse is indeed David’s father without even knowing it due to a sneaky plan carried out by his wife, and David’s brothers would regard him as an illegitimate and hated son of their mother. Either way, this poetic psalm simply cannot be used as support for that man is born with a sinful nature."

https://bjorkbloggen.com/2012/04/04...ut-its-no-support-for-a-sinful-nature-ps-515/

 

[Gideon300]

I wanted to address that part of your post.

David's saying about his being conceived in sin is an observation of himself as pertains to his mother. He isnt saying this of the whole human race.

He also isn't condemning his birth as sin when we read him praise his conception in Psalm 139:13-14.

"Some facts concerning David and his mother


David had two half-sisters (1 Chron. 2:13-16), and their father was not Jesse but Nahash (2 Sam. 17:25) who was an Ammonite king (1 Sam. 11:1). David’s mother might have been a second wife of Jesse. Perhaps the first wife of Jesse was considered superior to his second wife, because this would explain why David’s half brothers viewed themselves as superior to David and why David was not called before Samuel among the other sons – as he was possibly viewed as an illegitimate child (1 Sam. 16:11). We can speculate further that perhaps David’s mother was not married to Jesse when she became pregnant, or maybe she was still the concubine of, or married to Nahash when she conceived David. Moreover, we can’t rule out that it might be as per this story, reminding us about Jacob and Leah + her sister Rachel. If this story is applicable, then Jesse is indeed David’s father without even knowing it due to a sneaky plan carried out by his wife, and David’s brothers would regard him as an illegitimate and hated son of their mother. Either way, this poetic psalm simply cannot be used as support for that man is born with a sinful nature."

https://bjorkbloggen.com/2012/04/04...ut-its-no-support-for-a-sinful-nature-ps-515/

In Adam, all die. God told Adam that the day that he ate the forbidden fruit, he would surely die. Adam and Eve did not die physically. So either they died spiritually or God is a liar. I know which one I'd pick.

 

[Gideon300]

there is still the transfiguration, and in John 10:39, He walked right through a crowd of people actively trying to grab Him. to me that's even more amazing than walking through a wall into the upper room.

i'm not personally completely convinced His sinless, physical body held any more power or capability after His resurrection than it did before - - but we, who were sewn corruptible, will rise incorruptible, amen!!

 

[Gideon300]

i would say it's both spiritual and physical - that he began to physically die the moment he sinned ((as it was written, "dying" you shall die - - indicating a progression, a process over time))

the spiritual is immediate, but the immediacy of the physical takes time to manifest: a period of time that evidently has accelerated over history, looking at the length of years man lived in the Biblical record becoming shorter and shorter until the present age.

Sure, Adam began to die at the moment of disobedience. When it comes to the issue of sin, that was immediate and that sin nature is passed onto everyone born of woman. People sin because they are sinners by nature. They do not become sinners when they sin.

 

[Mem]

In Adam, all die. God told Adam that the day that he ate the forbidden fruit, he would surely die. Adam and Eve did not die physically. So either they died spiritually or God is a liar. I know which one I'd pick.

I happened on a lesson on the word shall being a conjugation of the word "should" and, that being new to me, I figured it must be because the usage of it had dwindled to very seldomly used (unless one wants to sound more, idk, refined?). Perhap it was because this decline in usage that I abandoned any further study of the validity of that claim, it's not commonly used in everyday, realtime, conversations anyway. But that peculiarity comes to mind in this instance. And it causes me to wonder. Might an interpretation of God saying, 'In the day that you eat of it, you (should) surely die (if it weren't for my grace keeping me from striking you down on the spot)? at all possible?

 

[PaulThomson]

This answer depends nds on whether you presume the Tree of Life is intended to be an antidote for sin that did not exist in the world.

a line of inquiry you should pursue is why Adam spent hours sewing fig life aves and hiding instead of going directly to this Tree of Life, when he knew death was i him, and why God prevented him later from doing so after giving him time in which he could have.

• was Adam an idiot
• is God malicious

Or maybe the effect of eating the tree of life is temporary and requires one to keep on coming back to it every 100 years or 1000 years. So grabbing quick fix before being barred would have had only a temporary effect. And eating frm the tree probably did not make one immune from a knife in the heart or a club to the head..

 

[PaulThomson]

Sure, Adam began to die at the moment of disobedience. When it comes to the issue of sin, that was immediate and that sin nature is passed onto everyone born of woman. People sin because they are sinners by nature. They do not become sinners when they sin.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. I do not adhere to similar traditions of men any more.

 

[PaulThomson]

In Adam, all die. God told Adam that the day that he ate the forbidden fruit, he would surely die. Adam and Eve did not die physically. So either they died spiritually or God is a liar. I know which one I'd pick.

God an be made out to be a liar, if someone translates His words in such a way as to make Him seem a liar.

Do a word search on "surely" and you will find plenty of examples where the outcome is predicted and was not immediately effected but was gradually brought to pass. Some have Been taught the doctrine of original sin, and are needing to post hoc rationalise their belief in original sin. To do so, they enlist this verse, claiming it says death will immediately come to pass, and therefore the death referred to cannot be not physical death, so must be spiritual death, separation from God. They then apply this "separation from God kind of death" to all Adam's descendants, even in the womb, and so prove to their own satisfaction, but not to mine, that original sin is a real thing.

Here are some texts that use the structure "infinitive absolute verb form + imperfective verb form pair" that are describing a gradual outcome, not an immediate outcome.

Gen 28:22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me ( עַשֵּׂר אֲעַשְּׂרֶנּוּ , infinitive absolute + imperfective piel) unto thee.

Gen 32:12 And thou saidst, I will surely do ( הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב , infinitive absolute + imperfective hiphil) thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.

Gen 50:24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit ( פָּקֹד יִפְקֹד , imperfective Qal + infinitive absolute.) you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

There are many others. You can do the word search yourself, if you are interested in the truth.

 

[TMS]

Sure, Adam began to die at the moment of disobedience. When it comes to the issue of sin, that was immediate and that sin nature is passed onto everyone born of woman. People sin because they are sinners by nature. They do not become sinners when they sin.

When are we guilty of sin?

When we are tempted or When we give in to temptation.

Jesus was tempted to sin but didn't give in.

We have a nature that is sinful and inclined to sin but we are not guilty until we give in to temptation.

 

[TMS]

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

[Magenta]

God created Adam and Eve neutral, neither good nor evil.

God proclaimed His creation good; Adam and Eve He proclaimed very good.

What they were that I rarely see mentioned or discussed at all is that they were of the natural world.

 

[PaulThomson]

Because I believe Paul is saying no-one's personal sin was imputed to them at birth, having no law to know the difference (v.13). We inherited a corruption that is in the flesh from Adam because he sinned and that leads to death.

A baby dies, not because their sin is imputed to them, but because Adam's sin has corrupted them. Therefore all die in Adam even when their own sin is not counted against them.

What indicates to you that Adam's sin corrupted Abel, Seth and Cain? If Adam and Eve needed to eat from the tree of Life to live forever, so were not inherently immortal, but they were very good, why would mortality be an indication of corruption?