By One Man's Disobedience Many Were Made Sinners

The argument that proof of original sin is that you have to teach one to do right, but you don't have to teach them to do wrong is skewed to the core.

Children from infancy have to be shown both good and bad behavior. Certainly they have instinctive knowledge to some degree as they grow and develop, but there is no moral value, no evil or righteousness attached to any thing an infant or young child does.

We have a whole lot of moral Neanderthals on this list, trying to attach moral blame or praise to infants. Some of you exhibit about as much understanding of moral issues as a baby exhibits knowledge of rocket science.

Certainly we have to teach morality to our children. They are not born with moral knowledge. They are driven by the sensibilities with no understanding of the intrinsic moral value period. This in no wise proves they are depraved from birth as some moral Neanderthals would like to preach. God has entrusted us as parents to guide and teach them the truth, and to teach them both what is morally right and what is morally wrong. That takes years of patient practice and example to develop a moral understanding and to reach the age of accountability, and age where one understands the intrinsic nature of a command apart from rewards or punishments.

I keep thinking I have read before that the Jews always felt it was around the age of sixteen or so before one actually is to be considered a moral agent, morally responsible for their actions. Maybe someone on here has access to the actual age they placed moral accountability at. To speak of infants and small children as morally evil is about as insane of an idea as one could possibly imagine.

The scary thought to me is, that God said we well might judge angels some day. I hope, for the angels sakes, that some of these morally ignorant individuals spouting of on the evil nature of infants are given another task to do besides showing themselves as unfit to judge even infants, let alone angels. May God have mercy on the angels!

 

It is not I, but you. You even read into what many (not all), but many of these commentators say. Children are children--not infants. In this context it is anyone under the age of 20. It is like our society of being old enough to vote, to know about the situation. You automatically think that once someone says "child" or "children" that it should mean "infant." You are wrong.

Whatever they say, the Bible is right, and you can't argue with Scripture.
The Lord was speaking of those 20 and under:

(Num 14:29) Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me,

You can either believe the Bible or not. It is right there in black and white.

 

I have no argument with the scriptures, and I do not dispute that God allowed every person 20 years old and under to enter the promised land. That does not mean they were 20 years old when the transgression occurred. God said "in that day" concerning these children.

Deu 1:39 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, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

We do not know exactly how old these persons were the day their parents sinned. But we know that God said they had no knowledge between good and evil. It shows that God holds people accountable according to their knowledge and maturity, and does not hold little children accountable for sin.

You can say what you will, I quoted many commentaries that all agreed Jonah 4:11 was speaking of children. You have your mind made up, no one can tell you anything.

 

You reject both scripture and common sense. Children do NOT have to be taught to do wrong - that is an indisputable absolute and universal truth. Instead, parents must pratice some sort of discipline to restrain natural inclination to do evil. That is a univeral truth that all parents know by experience. However, you are like President Obama who is such an idealogue that just as he continues to believe in socialism regardless of its universal failure, you continue to believe that infants are born without any predisposition to evil regardless of universal evidence to the contrary. You are an Theologue who rejects both Scripture and common sense.

If they were born without any predisposition toward evil as your philosophical theory demands then they should be naturally inclined to sinlessness and therefore parents should not need disciplinary restraints.

Your chosen theological view blinds you to objective and observable truth as well as the plain teaching of scripture:

Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

 

Another abuse of scripture. Isaiah 48:8 is not discussing Original Sin whatsoever, and it is not even speaking of natural birth, it is speaking of Israel as a nation when God brought them out of Egypt.

J, F, and B

Gill

Barnes Notes

Folks butcher the scriptures when they take a verse of of context and apply it to what it does not say. Isaiah 48:8 is not discussing Original Sin or all men's condition at birth. It is speaking of Israel as a nation only when they quickly sinned in the wilderness after coming out of Egypt.

 

You are only reading what you want to into these Scriptures and into some of these commentaries. I have noticed that the RCC does the same thing when it comes to reading the ECF (no reflection on you). For example, the Lord compares ALL in Nineveh, even the king, as children not knowing their left arm from their right arm. In other words they were completely ignorant of Jehovah, and it was Jonah's purpose to teach them with a simple message of repentance (from sin and to Jehovah--the one true God). I don't believe that the Bible records all of Jonah's message. They were like children, completely naive concerning the gospel, or in that case the one and true God.

In Deu.1:39 and in Num. it tells us plainly that those 20 and under were as children. The word children simply means "not adult." Because they were not adults they didn't have all the information to make a proper decision. That has been the same way in our nations for centuries. Only adults can go to the polls and votes. The children cannot. The children, right up until 18-20, depending on where you are, are not considered adults--mature enough to vote. They are still children, unable to comprehend all the facts. Those referred to in Deu.1:39 were still children, under 20, unable to comprehend all the facts.

By the time Moses died he was 80.
By the time Caleb conquered his mountain, he was more than 80.
They were the elder leaders.

Those that were 20 wandered for 40 years. They would have been 60 years and older, a full generation younger than Moses. That generation between 60 and 80 at the end of Moses life died in the wilderness. Their children 20 years and younger, when the nation rebelled, entered in. It is simple math. Some commentators don't dig enough. And in some commentators you read what you want to read, not what they are actually saying.

One more thing.
Deu 1:39 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, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

They were either 20 years and younger when the nation rebelled, or when the nation entered in.
It is one or the other.

Did a nation, completely between the ages of infancy and 20 go and conquer Jericho, Ai, and all the other cities in Canann?
I don't think so. Joshua could not have made an army out of people so young. Infants can't conquer a nation.

 

I do not question the fact that this is metaphorical language. However, the basis for all metaphors is a literal reality not fiction! The same is true for an allegory or a parable or a figure. There must be a LITERAL reality as the basis or there can be no metaphorical application.

However, your interpretation denies any LITERAL reality for such metaphorical langauge! In other words, you don't understand Biblical metaphors, allegories, parables or figures/types.

According to your interpetation, this kind of figurative langauge would have no basis for reality in the life of the readers and thus would be meaningless.

However, if infants were born with a sinful nature from the womb then the metaphor makes perfect sense.

 

That is easily refuted. Using your logic, Psalm 53 could be used to teach that children really are poisonous (because many serpents are truly poisonous), that children are born with huge teeth (because young lions truly do have huge teeth), and that children can melt (because a snail truly can melt). That is ridiculous.

Isaiah 48:8 is not speaking of all men, it is speaking of the nation of Israel only, it is not speaking of natural birth, it is speaking of Israel's birth as a nation when they came out of Egypt. You cannot use this verse to teach as doctrine that all men are born sinful. It is an absolute abuse of scripture.

On the other hand, Ecc 7:29 directly addresses the moral condition of man at birth, and says that God has made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions. At birth men are not sinful, they are upright, but soon after they willfully choose to sin. And the sin is their invention, God did not cause them to have sinful thoughts or create sinful thoughts as some hyper-Calvinists teach. Men have free will and have the ability to imagine or create thoughts for themselves, men of their own volition invent evil.

 

You are the one who believes the RCC doctrine of Original Sin, not me. I have never been a Catholic.

Look, I am not the one who determined the age limit, God did. I have no problem with that, you seem to have a great deal of difficulty with that. Not every child was 20, I am sure there were children of every age alive, down to newborn children. Nevertheless, God decided he would not hold those 20 and under accountable for their parent's sin. I have no problem with that. I do not know if this is always the norm, or only applies to this one situation. I do believe that God knows the hearts and minds of all persons, and God knows when a person is knowledgable and mature enough to understand sin and it's eternal consequences and holds a person accountable. I imagine it is a different age for every person, as some persons mature more quickly than others, some are deficient in knowledge...

OK, I know that Caleb and Joshua did not sin like the other adults.

I understand this, God not allowing the adults to enter the promised land was a specific penalty for their specific sin committed that day. And God chose not to hold any person under 20 years old accountable. Again, I have no problem with this, it is you that has the problem.

No, and I never meant to imply only 20 years and younger entered the promised land. It was those who were 20 years or less who were not held accountable for the sin in the wilderness. I have always known they spent many years wandering in the wilderness until the adults who sinned died off. Perhaps I did not communicate that well. I understand those who were 20 years old in the day the parents sinned would be nearly 60 years old when they entered the promised land.

But again, the real point is that Deut 1:39 shows that God requires a knowledge and maturity from a person before he holds them accountable for sin. I am not saying it is always 20 years old, but who knows? Perhaps that is the age God has chosen. It is not much different from our society that has set the age of adulthood at 21 years old. There are good reasons for laws like this, even teenagers are still quite naive and easily taken advantage of, that is why we do not allow them to sign legal contracts, and why they are treated more leniently concerning crime.

But that God allowed those who were 20 years old in the day the adults sinned in the wilderness to enter the promised land, I have no problem at all. You need to deal with it, God is just and knows exactly what he is doing.

 

Using your logic we should take the meaningless uninspired Psalm 53 (I think you mean 58:3) and assign it to the Hindu Vedas, or the Sikh Granth, or the writings of Buddha, or perhaps the sayings of Confucius. After all there is no truth for us in it as Christians. Isn't that your view? It is simply a meaningless verse somewhere floating out there in space that shouldn't be in our Bible but somehow crept in there anyhow because (God forbid) it just might teach the depravity of mankind! This is your view, right?
You deny 2Tim.3:16:

(2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--Given the truth of this Scripture of what profit is Psalm 58:3

(Psa 58:3) The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--The Psalm is totally metaphorical, so just throw it out. It doesn't mean a thing. Right? Your view.
--The Biblical view--it is inspired Scripture, and it is profitable for instruction.
Then what instruction? What does it teach? It teaches that the wicked go astray as soon as they are born--that mankind has a sin nature from birth. That is easy to comprehend. Scripture is not without meaning. It is not written without purpose. It does have meaning. Other Scripture (2Tim.3:16) verifies this. You don't like the meaning so you want to put the verse among the Hindu Vedas instead of leaving it here among God's Word, or so it seems. What meaning does it have? It can only have one possible interpretation, and that is an interpretation that you reject, based on a preconceived theology. Therefore your preconceived theology is wrong; not the Bible. The Bible isn't wrong. It never has been.

The rest of the Psalm is written in very poetical language. But every verse has meaning--every verse! Start a thread on Psalm 58 and we will go through the entire Psalm and see why verse three applies to all mankind having a sin nature, being born with a sin nature. We can look at the rest of the verses and see what they mean as well. Scripture is not written without meaning!

In its context the Scripture is addressed to Judah:

(Isa 48:1) Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.

Does that mean there is no application for us today?
Again, what does the verse in question say?

(Isa 48:8) Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.
--God was condemning their actions, to be sure. But at the same time he speaks a very important truth which cannot be ignored. They are called transgressors from the womb, a truth that applies to all mankind.

See if there are any other truths that apply to more than just the Israelites:
(Isa 48:10) Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.
(Isa 48:11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

Both of these verses are directly applicable to Israel. God is speaking to Israel, his chosen nation. However, in application:
Are we not today his chosen nation. Will he also refine us through affliction?
Will he choose whatever means he needs to choose so his name may not be profaned? Does the truth still stand: I will not give my glory to another. (meaning those to whom he has called).

In the same way there is truth in verse 8 applicable to all men, if you are willing to accept it.

That is not true. And here you ignore the context of the book completely. You ignore the writer of the book. The purpose of why he is writing; the introduction to the book, and the conclusion. You jump into the middle of it ignoring the total context.

Men may have free will, but it comes from a depraved heart, the sin nature that they are born with. You need to study this book more carefully.

 

I don't have to deal with it; you do.
We have a 17 year old here, right now convicted of theft, rape, and possibly murder. They want to move his case from juvenile to adult court because of the severity of the crime. It was heinous what he did. The person that he attacked was a 62 year old grandmother coming home from her work--a volunteer. Her husband is dying of cancer. Her children have lost their mother. Her grandchildren will never see their grandmother again. She was a sweet lady. What did she do to deserve to be knocked to the sidewalk, raped and left for dead? And by a 17 year old teen??

Is he responsible for his actions?
No, he hasn't reached the age of 20 yet. Right?

He has a depraved nature and has had one since he was born. If he didn't have a sin nature would he have engage in all of this criminal activity that is so brutal. Adam ate of the fruit of the tree, but didn't attack his wife in this way! He disobeyed God, but was not a savage like this kid. This comes from a depraved nature. But he isn't 20. He is not accountable you say??

You deal with the Scriptures. Now it is your problem!

 

Yes, I meant Psalm 58, thank you for the correction.

I do not say there is nothing to learn from the Psalms, in fact, the Psalms have always been some of my favorite reading in scripture, I find them very comforting and encouraging. And I believe that is the point of Psalm 58, David did not seek vengence upon his enemies, but committed that to God. The metaphors David used were not speaking of all men, but "the wicked", especially wicked persons who oppressed the poor and fatherless, who robbed and murdered the people. I don't believe David was speaking of the average Joe here. David was not praying that all children everywhere melt and pass away like snails, he was praying about exceedingly sinful people.

I think I just explained this. The Psalms especially are very comforting to Christians who have always been persecuted by evil people. We live in a great nation where we are free to worship in freedom, but in many countries even today Christians are murdered or imprisoned by truly evil people. I would bet these folks understand David's prayers for help better than we do. It is also comforting to know that others have suffered, it is good to know we are not alone in suffering.

It is obvious hyperbole and should be recognized as such. There is truth that evil people seem to go bad from a very early age, but no newborn baby can speak or tell lies.

I agree it has meaning. And I agree that especially evil persons seem to choose this life at a very early age. We see kids that start committing crimes at just about the time they become a teen, and many seem to choose this life and continue in it. That is about the time you really start to see the direction a child will go. Psa 58:3 is simply an exaggeration of this early decision to choose evil.

Isa 48:8 is not written concerning Original Sin at all. God is not speaking to all people, but the house of Israel and Judah. And the birth spoken of is the founding of the nation when they came out of Egypt, but soon sinned in the wilderness. Sure, there is a personal application, we should all be careful that we do not turn from God as they did. But again, this verse is not written concerning Original Sin.

All scripture is profitable to us, but this does not mean all scripture applies specifically to us. God did not command us to let our hair grow as Samson's did, but we can see the great trouble that happened to him when he sinned with Delilah.

No, Ecc 7:29 is directly addressing man's moral condition at birth. It is a direct statement, not a metaphor, nor hyperbole. It is saying God made man upright, which means righteous, but they (all men) have sought (showing a freewill decision) out many inventions (God did not create evil, men are responsible for their own evil).

You simply don't like Ecc 7:29 because it upsets your apple-cart.

 

And who are you to judge? On what scale? Which one do you use? Are you sure it is the same as God's?
God says:
(Jas 2:10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
--The exceedingly wicked is the one who has committed just one sin. He is just as guilty as the one who has broken all the law. We all stand guilty before God.

Yea, all who live Godly in Christ Jesus SHALL suffer persecution.
Perhaps the problem is that not enough people are living Godly lives.

Hyperboles involved or not, the verse has meaning. And for the sake of your preconceived ideas you are willing to throw this verse to the crocodiles of the Hindu Vedas instead of leaving it in the inspired Word of God. Words have meanings. They cannot be dismissed so easily. "But, but, but, but, but," you say. Yes, but your theology doesn't fit the verse. Accept it.

There is no indication of these infants/little children choosing to lie. They do lie as soon as they be born. Or, if you want to use a bit of hyperbole, shortly after they are born. They do it automatically. They are lying deceptive children with evil hearts that they are born with.

You act like someone with a paranoia. None of these scriptures were written with the intent of teaching original sin. But, if the concept is there, then it cannot be denied can it. The Great Commission is not deliberately taught in the Book of Jonah, but it can be taught from it.

It teaches that they were sinners from the womb, as all men are. You are the one, like Augustine, that is allegorizing this passage. That is what many of the Calvinists do. Pink is also a good example of one who spiritualizes Scripture. This is what you are doing instead of taking Scripture at face value. What is up with this? You are following in the footsteps of Origen and Augustine in your interpretation of Scripture.

And what else do we see from Isaiah 48, or do you purposely close your eyes and remain blind to its truths?

I didn't say it is a metaphor. It is not. I didn't say it is hyperbole. It is not. The fact that you will not consider the context of the book leaves you without any knowledge of the meaning of this verse. That is factual.

I appreciate its meaning; but only in its context.

 

Then you need to keep reading. In vss. 10 and 11 it is certain David is not speaking of all men in vs. 3.

Psa 58:10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

David is not saying all men are wicked in vs. 3, in fact, he is contrasting these evil persons to righteous men.

And do you really believe David was praying for all infants everywhere to melt like snails and pass away?

8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

I will say it again, I believe you lack discernment. The problem is you read your presuppositions into scripture which blinds you from comprehending them for what they truly are saying. David is not calling all men "the wicked", and he is not praying that all children everywhere perish. He is speaking of exceedingly wicked persons only.

No disagreement here.

Of course it has meaning. It is the prayer of a Christian who is being persecuted by evil men. David was a king, he did not deal with average people as you or I do. He dealt with men in high positions, other leaders of countries, and even men of high position in his own kingdom. Evil men have always been involved in politics, David had his own Hitler's and Stalin's to deal with every day. These are evil folks who will kill millions of their own people for power. This is the kind of person David is praying about.

Again, it is hyperbole. There has NEVER been a newborn child that can talk or tell a lie. It takes a child many months before they can say DA DA or MA MA. I have eght kids, I know what I am talking about. Parents make a big fuss when a child says their first words. But they cannot form complete sentences or thoughts at this age, that takes even more time. A child does not usually say even the most simple sentence until they are about a year and a half old. Even at this age, they have no comprehension what a lie is. They cannot form the intent to lie until they understand what a lie is.

I'm paranoid? You think newborn infants are devils.

[edit: picture too big]

No, it says they go astray, just as Jesus said a man had 100 sheep and one went astray, he left the 99 and searched for the lost sheep. But the sheep was originally in the flock, else it could not go "astray".

I have no way to know what you see in scripture.

Nevertheless, Ecc 7:29 is a direct statement concerning man's moral condition at birth, and Solomon said he has found that God made man UPRIGHT, but they have sought out many inventions. It is a direct statement.

 

Here are some direct statements of Scripture:
"Thou shalt not surely die."

"Why don't you curse God and die!"

(Act 13:10) And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

Direct statements of Scripture.
Are they all applicable to you?

 

HP: For whatever DHK willingly ignores as to the plain context, you clearly see.:thumbsup: Salute! Excellent points Winman!:thumbs:

 

HP: If we are to accept the notion that all are born as wicked sinners as you and others proclaim, this well could be taken as a universal statement.

 

He doesn't need to speak of all men. The truth is still there. All men are born as infants. They are not hatched from eggs.

Psa 58:10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

David is not saying all men are wicked in vs. 3, in fact, he is contrasting these evil persons to righteous men.

And do you really believe David was praying for all infants everywhere to melt like snails and pass away?

8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

I will say it again, I believe you lack discernment. The problem is you read your presuppositions into scripture which blinds you from comprehending them for what they truly are saying. David is not calling all men "the wicked", and he is not praying that all children everywhere perish. He is speaking of exceedingly wicked persons only. [/quote]
I am not a Calvinist. Remember that. I am not reading presuppositions into this passage. However you are teaching a heresy called Pelagianism. It has been condemned from the earliest of centuries by Orthodox Christianity: both Protestant and Catholic alike. Your position lies outside of orthodox Christianity. I don't have presuppositions that I read into these passages; but it is evident that you do, for you take them right out of their context. And you do it again and again.

Take the above passage, for example.
They go forth from their womb speaking lies. It is evident it is speaking of infants. It is evident that is speaking of a sin nature. As you say the context is the unrighteous. However who does that apply to?
When I was born I was not righteous.
When I grew up I was not righteous.
I grew up in a pagan home. I did wicked things. I was not saved until I was an adult. The Psalm describes me as much as it does anyone else. But for the grace of God here go I. There is none righteous, no not one. We are born evil, and need to be born again. Except it be for the grace of God, we would all be doomed. But Christ so loved us that he came and died for us and offered us salvation.

Again, you resort to the opinion of: cut the verse out of your Bible because it has no meaning for us today--give it to the Hindus.
You ignore 2Tim.3:16 that all Scripture is inspired and profitable for instruction.
It is the instruction that you don't like; you want to reject it; refuse it.
The Psalm has meaning. The meaning we can take from it and see how it is applicable to us. But you don't want to do that. It flies in the face of your Pelagianism.

Your experience with your children does not trump the Word of God. If you are of that mindset you should become a Charasmatic, where they do put experience first much of the time. I trust what God's Word says, not your experience.

No, they have sin natures. So do you. I reject Pelagianism.

[edit: picture too big]

The word astray has more than one meaning. We don't have to stick to your meaning of the word. That certainly is not necessary. The Bible uses the term "astray as soon as they be born." Were the KJV translators wrong?

I see what it says. Isn't it evident to you?

(Isa 48:8) for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

"Thou shalt not surely die"
--a direct statement also.

When will you learn about context? Why do you think that Ecclesiastes is the favorite book of the cults?

 

It could. We are enemies of righteousness until we get saved.

 

So DHK, context does not matter to you in reality. It can mean whatever you so desire for it to mean and include whomsoever you decide is included depending on the presupposition you happen to be looking to support at the moment.