Would people in nations today and throughout history who have not heard about our true God and who have absolutely no knowledge of God's law be considered "innocent" because
"where no law is, there is no transgression."

_________________
Jade

marcmc,
I just want to understand what you believe. Do you believe that a new born baby is evil, cause that sure sounds like what you are saying?

RE : /// Would people in nations today and throughout history who have not heard about our true God and who have absolutely no knowledge of God's law be considered "innocent" because
"where no law is, there is no transgression."///

The first 3 chapters of Romans : Paul spends a great deal of time proving that all are under sin.

Paul specifically answers your question :

14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)


All men reach a state of accountability by which they understand that somethings are right and somethings are wrong. When they fail their own standard they become guilty
add : "all men of normal minds that live long enough will die of innocence"

Excellent reply,

I remember the first time I read this in Romans and was soooooooo impressed with Paul's explanation to this very valid conundrum...Paul's apologetics have a way of turning your pupils star-shaped (because it is done so definitively and with such LOVE!!!)

Essentially, he is saying that the "heathens" are without excuse b/c they, too were born with a conscience which would hold them accountable, even if God didn't.

Makes perfect sense to me...

Love-in-Christ

kyp

Brother I absolutely agree with every word you've taken care to post in this thread, and not only is it directly in line with my own personal findings (even down to where/when/who brought this doctrine into the church) from probably the single most extensive study of any one topic in the scriptures I've ever personally done. That in itself doesn't make it "right" but it is very encouraging to me to kno I'm not the only person who came to this conclusion after mining the scriptures. It came to my attention some time ago that this is in opposition to most "orthodox" confessions of faith and often those who maintain this position are often branded heretics.

You are obviously more than capable to handle your own regarding this topic tho' I'd like to share the scripture that (for me) sealed the deal.
It's found in the prophecy of Jesus coming as messiah found in the 7th chapter of Isaiah verse 16a

"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good,"

for any who may be interested in reading in context it makes a strong case for a proverbial "age of accountability".
Tho' there are (for me) several scriptural premises illustrating this principal that flow in context with the whole of the word as well common sense examples of this as a factual basis of truth, at this point in the discussion it would only serve to create strife for me to press the point-

Having said that, this is one of the 3 big misunderstandings that came about that has undermined the very foundations of the church for some 1700 years. (From my research)

As for brother Tuc's OP question, did our flesh change?
Yes
"The wages of sin is death"
"Thru sin, death entered the world"

_________________
Fletcher

I am sure God loves every baby and God loves every one of us. For God so loves the world! He loves us with an everlasting love.

I would just say that there are many things we do not really understand now. Eternity I am sure will reveal how little we have understood about so many “other things”. In the final analysis, the only thing that really matters for us now is the knowledge of the glory of the cross and the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and in all our conversations and discussions that surely must stand out bold and clear at the bottom line.

We thank God for His tender mercies with which the Sunrise from on high has visited us to shine upon us who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace (Luke 1:78-79)

_________________
Jade

I thought that tuc meant, did we become mortal after the fall, and so I said no as I think that mortality was meant for us from the start.

But yes I agree that babies are born innocent, It says in the OT that man sufferers for his own sins. To say that he must suffer for the sins of others is not just. The scriptural proof for original sin is weak.

And yes Augustine did a number on the church when he said, in dispute with the non heretical Pelagius, during their debate on Romans 7, that Christians struggle with sins daily, which was a turn around from his previous state of saying that Romans 7 was the unbeliever. But Augustine was like that, changing at a whim to save face.

A young child will one day reach the accountable stage and fall into sin inevitably and will need saved, as Pelagius stated.

So was Jesus Christ, who was the last Adam. Was His "FLESH" any different from the first Adam's "FLESH"?

What is sinful "flesh"?

RE : /// What is sinful "flesh"? ///

I believe :

"sinful flesh" is flesh that has been tainted by sin ,

Jesus Flesh was only in : "likeness of sinful flesh" He never personally sinned

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

If it is a sinful nature that causes people to to sin and Jesus did not have a sinful nature than it would stand to reason that Jesus was not tempted in all points like we are.
But the Scripture says that He was : " in all points tempted like as we are"

______________

Edit add : RE: ///So was Jesus Christ, who was the last Adam. Was His "FLESH" any different from the first Adam's "FLESH"?///

That is a good question, I do not have that one thought through :
Did Adam age ?
Did Jesus age ?

Tuc-

Perhaps if you would define what you mean by "flesh" we could avoid talking past each other.

To me, flesh is simply our tissues and bones and organs; our bodies and only our bodies.

If that is what you mean when you use the term "flesh" then I would argue that sin "infected" our flesh in the sense that it was now subject to decay, etc. The fall started this chain reaction because all human flesh has aged and decayed since then.

Even Jesus aged and I am sure at age 33 when he died his body would have shown signs of some wear and tear in the joints, etc.

That being said, I agree with PP that babies are sinless. They will sin some day, likely at a very young age, but babies are not guilty of sin. They don't need to be baptized to remove the stain of original sin as the RCC teaches.

_________________
Todd