As far as the verse in Deuteronomy, unless you are willing to go as far as to say that twenty year olds are not accountable for their sin, then I would not use this verse as a support for your view (not to mention the fact that it doesn’t support your view).

We are punished because of both our sin nature and our sin. We are punished because of our sin nature because our sin nature separates us from God and makes us totally incapable of doing good. We are punished because of our sin because…well because we are punished for our sin. We are born both with a sin nature and the accountablility for Adam’s sin. In Adam all sinned. Adam, as the head or representative of the human race, sinned. Just as Christ’s righteousness was imputed to those for whom He died (and I am not trying to start that discussion), so also Adam’s sinfulness was imputed to all the human race. We are punished for our part in Adam’s sin in the sense that we have a sin nature because of it. In Adam all died. We are punished for Adam’s sin because we carry the sin nature passed down to us. We are punished for our individual sins individually, and we are punished for Adam’s sin corporately. From the womb we are estranged from God. Our very separation would ensure eternal damnation. It does not take a deliberate act of sin to separate us from God. Were it not for grace, we would be punished for our very separation. However, God is able to overcome the gap between us and Him, and is able to save us out of our sinful state.

All that being said, our topic is infant baptism. I am not sure how your post fits in with that topic.

No. Reasonable people will most certainly disagree. You have to understand that all of humanity sinned in Adam. Your first sin out of the womb is not what condemns you. Your first sin in the loins of Adam in the Garden is what condemns you.

Moreover, depravity is not just a bent in our nature to sin — a problem that will eventually work itself out. It is already actively sinning. The idea of total depravity is that every part of us is affected by our natural sinfulness. So just the state of being depraved is an act of offense toward a holy God. We, by default, do not glorify God as He ought to be glorified, and so we
provoke God and deserve His wrath.

Your argument from Deuteronomy is entirely misapplied. We’re not talking about salvation, or the kingdom. We’re talking about going into Canaan. God spares the children as well as a few others, but only according to His grace. To say that this mimics salvation is like saying Moses went to hell because God didn’t let him into Canaan. These are apples and oranges.

Assume that I am born with a depraved nature, a propensity to sin – inherited from Adam (as a Zygote? Blastocyst? Embryo? Fetus? Newborn? Toddler?). Does my depraved nature condemn me, or is it my sin that condemns me? I hear that I am born totally depraved. I tend to say so what unless you can show me that God punishes a depraved nature (the potential for sin) rather than punishes the actual sin. To say that I am born with the propensity to sin (meaning I will sin) is not the same thing as saying that I was born a sinner (meaning I have already sinned).

So what that I am born depraved, with a propensity to sin. I think reasonable people will agree that at the moment of birth I have not yet sinned. And what constitutes my first sin? The Bible says that, without the Law, there is no sin. So – do I have to be able to understand the Law first before I can sin? If sin is defined as disobeying God, can I disobey/sin when I don’t know that God’s Law exists, much less what it says (say, at the age of 6 months)? What does the Bible teach about this? Is there not some sufficient mental capacity required before I can be found guilty of (a) knowing God’s law and (b) intentionally disobeying it?

Consider again – from my post above dated 30 March 2008:

“Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither [those younger than age 20], and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.” Deuteronomy 1:39

These are words spoken by God. They refer to children. God says nothing about whether He thinks these kids have depraved natures. He also says nothing about whether they have been sinning from birth. But God does say He will not hold the children accountable because they had no knowledge between good and evil. (Just as Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil until after they had sinned.)

You said, “You still have not given me one scripture that says obedience is a work of merit.”

Ray, you are the one saying that acts of obedience are works of merit. The following statements are all equal.

Acts of obedience obtain salvation
Acts of obedience are works that merit salvation
Acts of obedience are works of merit

You believe that acts of obedience obtain salvation, so you also believe that acts of obedience are works of merit. I should not even say that this is the “conclusion” of what you are saying, because this is not even a derivative of your belief, this is the ESSANCE of your belief. Saying that acts of obedience are works of merit is not where your beliefs will lead, because it is what your beliefs are. I do not see why you are not understanding this. If you believe that acts of obedience merit salvation, then explain to me why you say that they are not works of merit. The fact that you are saying that acts of obedience (which obtain salvation) are not works of merit (which are acts of obedience that obtain salvation) is self-contradictory. That is like saying that works of merit are not works of merit. If an act of obedience earns salvation, then it is a work of merit. The Bible says that we are not saved by works of merit, so you are trying to avoid defining acts of obedience that way, for obvious reasons. However, you cannot just avoid the term without also avoiding the definition. You say that acts of obedience are not works of merit, yet you also say that acts of obedience accomplish the same thing that works of merit would accomplish.

Here is your explanation of a work of merit: A work of merit is anything that we do of our own effort to earn salvation. You say that acts of obedience are not works of merit, yet you say that they are things that we do of our own effort to earn salvation. You cannot avoid the term without avoiding the definition. Therefore, to avoid the term, acts of obedience will also have to avoid the definition. So lets see how your view of acts of obedience measures up to the definition of works of merit.

According to your definition of a work of merit, there are three qualifications that something must meet before being defined as a work of merit. These are the following:

1) It is something that we do
2) It is of our own effort
3) It earns salvation

If an act of obedience meets these three qualifications, then it can, and must, be defined as a work of merit, since this is the definition of a work of merit. So now, let us examine your view of baptism, as an act of obedience, in light of these three qualifications.

You can not deny that baptism meets the first two qualifications, because baptism is indeed something that we do, and it is of our own effort. (If you disagree that acts of obedience are of our own effort, then welcome to Calvinism) You also say that baptism earns salvation. BY YOUR OWN WORDS AND DEFINITIONS baptism is a work of merit. Unless we say that baptism does not meet one of these qualifications, then we must alow that baptism is a work of merit. I say that baptism is not a work of merit, because it does not meet the third qualification of a work of merit. You say that baptism is not a work of merit even though it meets all three qualifications (by your own words). You will now say to me, “I don’t want to hear your logic, just give me one verse.” That is all fine, but how far are you going to get in your understanding of the scriptures by denying logic? I have given you a somewhat lengthy logical reason why baptism cannot save, and that is because if it could save, it would meet all the requirements for being a work of merit, and we know that the Bible says that we are not saved by works of merit. So, interestingly enough, the fact that baptism saves would make it impossible that baptism could save.

You have completely misunderstood what I’m doing. When I say you’re perverting the Word, I’m not saying that because I don’t like you, or because I’m trying to take shots at you. I’m saying it because it’s true. And if it’s true that you’re doing that, it’s unloving for me to watch you persist in sin and not say anything about it. The same goes for my saying that you’re being foolish. There’s no animosity in my “voice” there. I guess that’s why it’s difficult to understand, since we’re on the computer and not speaking with tone, rhythm, gesture, and all those suprasegmental and nonverbal aspects of communication. But I’m telling the truth in Christ, I’m not lying, my conscience bearing witness in the Holy Spirit, that I am not angry or bitter or malicious in my severe, yet not-uncalled-for, comments. Every time I’ve said something severe I’ve acknowledged that it was severe, and that you shouldn’t take it maliciously. You’ve ignored that. It’s unfortunate, but I can’t do anything about it except reassure you that that’s not what was going on.

But it’s wrong to say that if I say you’re acting foolishly then I’m automatically haughty and self-righteous. What if you really are acting foolishly? Don’t I have a responsibility to tell you, regardless of anything about me at all? I mean… was Solomon haughty and self-righteous when he talked about foolish people in Proverbs? Or Paul? Or Jesus? No, of course not. Did they people they called foolish think they were. I’ll bet they did. Doesn’t make them right. Not one bit.

You still have not given me one scripture that says obedience is a work of merit. And the reason is because it does not exist. Not your logic but just one scripture. It does not exist.

You still have not given us one scripture that says obedience is a work of non-merit. And the reason is because it does not exist. Not your logic but just one scripture. It does not exist.

I’ll say this one more time. You, Ray, not Daniel nor I, but YOU started talking about works of merit. Again, if you do an Edit, Find and punch in the word “merit” you’ll see that you were the first person to bring that up. I’m not saying you ever said obedience was a work of merit. I’m saying that by using the phrase “work of merit,” you automatically acknowledge that there’s some kind of work that has no merit. I’m asking you to defend that biblically. And then you’re getting angry and crying “Foul!” And refusing to deal with the passages I quoted (Rom 4:4, Phil 2:13, Is 64:8, etc.). You sure you’re not the one who’s getting angry because you have no real arguments?

And that’s hysterical that you’d accuse me of that. I challenge you to produce one question that you’ve asked me, that I did not engage fully with, and provide an answer to. Every single ludicrous objection you’ve raised, I’ve dealt with — usually while quoting what you just said above my response, a courteousy you have not granted either of us.

Not everyone believes that Romans 5 : 12 – 21 teaches that babies are born sinners. Also not everyone believes what you teach about Psalm 51 and Eph. 2.

Obviously not, but I never said that EVERYONE believes that. I said that Calvinists and Arminians believe that. The only other view is what has been known as Pelagianism since the 400s AD. These are just definitions, Ray. Both Calvinists and Arminians believe the doctrine of Original Sin. A Pelagian doesn’t. There are no other categorise. The definition of a Pelagian is one who denies original sin. Pelagius was a heretic. The entire historic Christian church has refused fellowship to anyone with that belief. How can you ignore 1600 years of what Christianity has defined it self as? It’s just irresponsible.

I’m just gonna go through this one more time.

Romans 5:12-21 teaches that all people (now that’s EVERYONE) sinnED (in the past tense) at a specific point in time. It teaches that that specific point in time in which we sinned was the moment when Adam sinned. We were “in Adam” (Cf. 1Cor 15:22) when he sinned, and so are guilty along with him. The rest of the passage, along with 1 Cor 15:22, teaches we DIED in Adam.

So man, by nature, is dead. That’s also taught in Ephesians 2. It says that by nature, humans are born as children of wrath. Which means we’re destined for destruction because of our deadness which we purchased by our sin in Adam.

David confirms the truth of the depravity of humanity even from the womb in Psalm 51. You say he’s only talking about himself, but you have to prove that. You have to demonstrate what could have possibly made David’s sin different than ours. You haven’t done that, and can’t do that. So that shows that his statement about being sinful from the womb applies to all humanity. Psalm 58 also says that wicked goes astray from birth, and that he’s a liar by nature.

Romans 3 teaches that all have sinnED — again a universal ALL, and again in the past tense. Not all will eventually sin. All have already sinned. When did a 1 second-old baby sin? In Adam, in the Garden, round about 6,000 years ago.

Your unscriptural maxims have forced you to logically deny that children have to be born again. Jesus said that you cannot enter the kingdom of God without being born again. Whether you’re 5 mins old or 55 years old, if you’re not born again, no kingdom for you.

When you tell me that I’ve “missed the intent of those passages,” you don’t show me how what you say is right. You just assert that it’s right. But if you just read the passage, understand “all” means all, “sinned” is in the past tense, and that “dead” means dead, you understand that all humans are born in sin.

I have tried to show you how you do indeed believe that acts of obedience are works of merit. Unless you believe that acts of obedience are either not of our own effort or that they cannot earn salvation, then you believe that acts of obedience are works of merit. You say that baptism saves, so you believe that baptism is a work of merit. If baptism is not a work of merit, then it either is not of our own effort, or it does not obtain salvation. Again, these are the only two options. I agree that the Bible does not alow for works of merit. You SAY that acts of obedience are not works of merit because you know that the Bible would clearly deny that. However, your BELIEF says that acts of obedience are indeed works of merit. You just refuse to see that connection because it would prove that your view is unbiblical.

Please produce one instance in which I’ve insulted you. You have all of the words I’ve written write here. Quote one.

Press Ctrl+F and enter the words “work of merit” and see who said that first. Neither Daniel nor I would have ever thought to say the term “work of merit” because it’s redundant. YOU have introduced the category of works of merit vs. works of non-merit. You obviously believe that works can be non-meritorious. Where in Scripture is THAT language?

All babies are born sinners is clear in the language of Romans 5:12-21. Calvinists, Augustinianas, AND Arminians alike all agree on that. It seems to be obvious to them that when you just quote the Scripture, they see that all of humanity actually sinned in Adam, and so is guilty of Adam’s sin. The human race fell, and so men are born in sin, and are by nature children of wrath. I’m not even using my own language. I’m not even interpreting it. I’m just writing Eph 2:3. You’re problem is that you have decided what you need to get Scripture to mean. So when someone quotes a verse that illustrates their point (Rom 5:12-21, Ps 51, Eph 2), we have to explain the actual intent of the Scripture to get around your false assumptions.

You perceive arrogance in me — even though I labored to tell you that I’m not looking down on you, or treating you wrongly — because you think that to be saved is something you do. If I accuse you of not being saved, you hear that as: “You didn’t do something. It’s your fault. Your works are imperfect.” My whole point is that I’m not saved because “I got it,” or because “I obeyed.” I’m saved by the grace of God. And as long as you deny that that’s how one is saved, you will never cry out to him in your need, and so will never be saved. That’s just the truth. There’s no animosity. There’s no arrogance. There’s no high-and-mightiness. I’m none of those things. I have no reason to be arrogant, and I’m certainly not high nor mighty. If I’m angry with you, it’s because of how you’re perverting the Word of God and dishonoring Him in His own name.

And you still didn’t respond to what I’ve said my previous post in the way I’ve asked. Still no honest interaction. Still just straw men and red herrings and ad hominems.