|
Post by frankf on Sept 2, 2008 22:33:22 GMT -5
Hi everyone. It’s been a few months since I last posted, but I’m glad to be back. I hope that we can have some interesting conversations.
With this post I was hoping we could discuss Jesse’s booklet entitled The Fall of Mankind, where a case against the existence of original sin is laid out. I thought the booklet was interesting, but I can’t entirely agree with it – particularly in the case of some of the chosen Scripture references. I downloaded the booklet from the Library of Theology website, so any page references that I make will correspond to that version.
On page 4, the following passage is found:
"So, infant children, who are morally “innocent” (2 Kgs. 21:16; 24:4; Joel 3:19) and have not yet “done anything” morally “good or evil” (Rom. 9:11), are subjected to physical death as a consequence of Adam’s sin since they are born outside of the Garden of Eden. This physical depravity upon all men is a direct result of Adam’s sin. But since infant children have neither guilt (because they are innocent) nor any sin (they have committed none), infant children do not go to Hell but to Heaven if they die in infancy (2 Sam. 12:23; Matt. 19:14), since they have no sin to be punished for."
First off, when I look at the Scriptures cited in the first statement regarding the innocence of children, I fail to see why these verses are referenced. 2 Kings 21:16 certainly contains the word “innocent”, but it is not speaking specifically of children. In the context of the same chapter, it is apparent that the “innocent blood” spoken of is that of the prophets and other godly people who kept themselves free from the idolatry into which Mannasseh had led the people. Nowhere, however, does the verse speak of the automatic innocence of children. Children are, in fact, not mentioned. This likewise pertains to the second and third verses cited, 2 Kings 24:4 and Joel 3:19. They have no relevance to the point that is being made aside from the fact that they contain the word “innocent.”
With regards to Romans 9:11, I don’t think there is much to be said. Original sin and actual sin are distinguished by the vast majority of theologians and philosophers who hold to the doctrine. You will find no argument to the idea that unborn infants have not done anything.
In the last statement of this particular passage from The Fall of Mankind, 2 Samuel 12:23 and Matthew 19:4 are referenced in order to prove that infant children go directly to Heaven. Personally, I feel that there is great hope to believe that infant children go to God when they die, but these Scriptures hardly prove the point. Let’s take a look at 2 Samuel 12:23, where David speaks of his infant son who has just died.
“But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”
It may be encouraging and hopeful to assume that David is speaking of joining his son in Heaven, but the Old Testament hardly supports this postulation. Rather, David is speaking of joining his son in Sheol. In Genesis 37:35, Jacob makes a similar statement to David’s when he says, “…I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.” Job 7:9-10 and 10:21 reveal more insight into what David meant when he said, “…he will not return to me.”
Before we go any further with the discussion, I was wondering what everyone else’s thoughts were on this portion of the booklet. Is this a thread worth carrying on, or should we let it die as quickly as it began?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Sept 3, 2008 8:24:45 GMT -5
Hi everyone. It’s been a few months since I last posted, but I’m glad to be back. I hope that we can have some interesting conversations. With this post I was hoping we could discuss Jesse’s booklet entitled The Fall of Mankind, where a case against the existence of original sin is laid out. I thought the booklet was interesting, but I can’t entirely agree with it – particularly in the case of some of the chosen Scripture references. I downloaded the booklet from the Library of Theology website, so any page references that I make will correspond to that version. On page 4, the following passage is found: "So, infant children, who are morally “innocent” (2 Kgs. 21:16; 24:4; Joel 3:19) and have not yet “done anything” morally “good or evil” (Rom. 9:11), are subjected to physical death as a consequence of Adam’s sin since they are born outside of the Garden of Eden. This physical depravity upon all men is a direct result of Adam’s sin. I could show you that the physical depravity is not from sin, but it is how we all are created. Adam and ever sinned just as we do today. The are made of weak flesh that noe one can pleas God with. The cause of Adams fall is the flesh: 1John 2:16 For all that is in the world,1: the lust of the flesh 2: the lust of the eyes 3: the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was...1: good for food, and that it was...2: pleasant to the eyes. and a tree to be...3: desired to make one wise she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.We are no diferent that they were, even before they sinned. Adam would have even died in the garden before he sinned if he never ate of the tree. The flesh was never meant to live for ever.
|
|
|
Post by mattmisk on Sept 3, 2008 12:34:19 GMT -5
Frank,
I agree with your synopsis on the quote and the texts mentioned (except for your comment on Rom 9:11, which I do not understand). Perhaps more discretion is needed when citing verses to back up points.
Matt
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Sept 3, 2008 12:48:48 GMT -5
Frank, I agree with your synopsis on the quote and the texts mentioned (except for your comment on Rom 9:11, which I do not understand). Perhaps more discretion is needed when citing verses to back up points. Matt Matt, My point in commenting on Romans 9:11 was only to draw distinction between original and actual sin. Most theologians that hold to the doctrine make such a distinction and readily admit that infants have no sin in deed (i.e. actual sin).
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 16:44:20 GMT -5
Frank,
The context of 2 Kings 21:16 is children sacrifices. When it talks about shedding "innocent blood" it is talking about sacrificing children upon the altar of Molech.
It says that "he made his son pass through the fire" (2 Kings 21:16). That is, he sacrificed innocent children upon the altar. "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire of Molech..." (Lev. 18:21)
That is why it says that he did "after the abominations of the heathen", whom the Lord cast out before the children of Israel" (2 Kings 21:2). That is, he did just like the heathen who used to occupy the land that sacrificed innocent children. "When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire..." (Deut. 18:9-10). It was the heathen practice of the former occupants of the land to sacrifice innocent children. "But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, ye, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel." 2 Kings 16:3
Again, since King Manasseh sacrificed children, it says that he "shed" "innocent blood" (2 Kings 24:4). I consider children to be innocent because the Bible calls them innocent. According to the meaning of the Hebrew word used here for "innocent", children are "guiltless". That is because guilt is not hereditary, guilt is derived from personal choices after the age of accountability.
Matt,
I would encourage you to take another look at the context of the passage. It is clearly talking about Molech worship, of sacrificing innocent children, "he made his son pass through the fire".
This is what Albert Barnes said about this topic:
"But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, ye, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel." 2 Kings 16:3
"And made His son to pass through the fire - i. e. Ahaz adopted the Moloch worship of the Ammonites and Moabites 2Ki_3:27; Mic_6:7, and sacrificed at least one son, probably his firstborn, according to the horrid rites of those nations, and the Canaanite tribes Deu_12:31; Psa_106:37-38. Hereto, apparently, the Jews had been guiltless of this abomination. They had been warned against it by Moses (marginal reference; Deu_18:10); and if (as some think) they had practiced it in the wilderness Eze_20:26; Amo_5:26, the sin must have been rare and exceptional; from the date of their entrance into the promised land they had wholly put it away. Now, however, it became so frequent (compare 2Ki_17:17; 2Ki_21:6) as to meet with the strongest protest from Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer_7:31-32; Jer_19:2-6; Jer_32:35; Eze_16:20; Eze_20:26; Eze_23:37, etc.)." Albert Barnes
|
|
|
Post by jackjackson on Sept 3, 2008 17:55:54 GMT -5
Interesting points from Scripture Jesse.
I saw a interesting point in a series we are watching called "The Truth Project". In it God keeps saying how everything is "good" and then He says after creating Adam that "it is not good" for man to be alone. So they ask how can everything have been good before the fall when it was not good, from when He created Adam, and until He made Eve?
The program speaks of a difference between quantitative goodness vs. ethical goodness. Man was made in God's imagine which had to be good, but it wasn't ethically good for man to be alone, even though man had God, it as not good; until He gave Adam a wife to bring forth more humans and have a relationship with.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Sept 3, 2008 21:10:06 GMT -5
Upon further reflection, I certainly see the validity of your argument, and I agree that from the context of the chapter, it seems likely that the "innocent blood" spoken of may be in regard to human child sacrifices. My original assumption regarding the "innocent blood" spoken of was to apply it to the prophets and godly men who spoke out against Manasseh, but I agree that your interpretation is quite supported by the text. My original position, however, relied on extra-biblical tradition. I am referring to the Jewish tradition that Isaiah was sawed in half under Manasseh. Have you heard of this tradition, or am I dreaming?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 23:21:34 GMT -5
Frank,
I am very pleased that you can see the validity of my understanding of that passage. I guess I ran the risk of giving a proof text without explaining in detail the context of the passage.
I am not very familiar with the extra-biblical Jewish tradition. I don't know much about Manasseh at all, except from what I read in the scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by pete777 on Sept 3, 2008 23:57:32 GMT -5
Brethern,
Adam and Eve were very, very, very different after the fall! Before the fall they had no pull of the flesh to commit sin! They were not followed with temptation to do wicked filth! They lived in harmony with the Creator (Jesus Christ) and were so filled with the Holy Spirit that they had garments of light! The Holy Spirit shown out of thier body (like Moses on the mount, but in absolute perfection). They sinned and the Holy Spirit LEFT!! Gone by-by! The whole gospel plan for man is to get the Holy Spirit back in the life and to reside there without sin in the flesh, so that man can be eternally secure from choosing sin again! Man before the fall were like the angels, and man after the fall is like SATAN!!! We must be born again of the Holy Spirit!
If I have time I would like to do a study on this issue, as it is very, very clear from the Bible.
Matthew
|
|
|
Post by pete777 on Sept 4, 2008 0:10:01 GMT -5
To speak of the salvation of infants borders on presumption, and looking into something that God has not clearly revealed! Be careful!
Romans 9:11 is not talking about "BABIES" it is talking about the future seed or future heritage of the groups of people.
Esau= future wicked group of people!
Jacob= future holy group of people!
For clear Biblical support of this, see Malachi 1:2-3. It is the heritage that is laid waste because of sin. Esau would not follow God, and so his offspring would be neglected in the holy oracles, and sanctification of godly parents. Thus his heritage would be filled with satanic power and sin and hate.
ut Jacob was raised by Issac and Abraham! Look at what God had to say about that!
Gen 18:19
19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. KJV
Isa 58:14
14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. KJV
The talk of "babies" has nothing to what so ever, at all even in the slightest in regards to infants, but to inheritance!!!! Please consider what is revealed and not what is forbidden!
Deut 29:29
29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. KJV
NOTE: The use of children in Deut 29:29 means heritage, not little babies!!!
Matthew
|
|
|
Post by pete777 on Sept 4, 2008 0:11:00 GMT -5
Mal 1:2-3
2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. KJV
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 4, 2008 9:17:31 GMT -5
"And when the women saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat.." Gen. 3:6
Her flesh was a source of temptation. She has NATURAL DESIRES for food, pleasantness, and wisdom. These are good desires that God gave her. But the devil tempted her to use these natural-good-desires for evil. The devil tempted her to fulfill or gratify her natural desires in a forbidden way.
The same goes for us today. The devil tempts us to gratify our natural, God given desires in an unlawful manner.
==========================
This is from an outline I wrote:
2. God has given us natural desires that can be gratified lawfully or unlawfully (Gen. 3:6).
"When God made us He gave us many different appetites... But God looked at the being He made and to whom He had given all these appetites and urges and said, 'It is good!” Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 141)
-----A. We have a natural desire for food (Gen. 2:16).
-----B. We have a natural desire for sexual relations (Gen. 1:28; 2:24).
-----C. We have a natural desire for well-being (Gen. 2:18).
-----D. The natural desire God has created us with are good, not evil (Gen. 1:31).
3. Sin is when the will of man seeks to gratify a natural desire in an unlawful manner (Gen. 3:6).
-----A. Our natural desire for food can be used for gluttony.
-----B. Our natural desire for sexual relations can be used for fornication, adultery, or homosexuality.
-----C. Our natural desire for well-being can lead to selfishness and greed.
“Now temptation is not sin. Temptation is the proposition presented to the mind that you can satisfy a good appetite in a forbidden way. Temptation leads to sin…. Sin is the decision of the will…. sin is the decision to gratify a good appetite in a bad way." Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 141-142)
“Don’t mistake temptation for sin. Temptation is a suggestion to gratify a desire in an illegal way or amount. Temptation is not sin. Jesus was tempted.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 83).
“The bodily appetites and tendencies of body and mind, when strongly excited, become the occasions of sin. So it was with Adam. No one will say that Adam had a sinful nature. But he had, by his constitution, an appetite for food and a desire for knowledge. These were not sinful but were as God made them. They were necessary to fit him to live in this world as a subject of God’s moral government. But being strongly excited led to indulgence, and thus became the occasions of his sinning against God. These tendencies were innocent in themselves, but he yielded to them in a sinful manner, and that was his sin.” Charles Finney (You Can Be Holy, published by Whitaker House, p. 215).
"We have a nature that is capable of being perverted from legitimate to illegitimate, from the natural to the unnatural, from the pure to the polluted." Sin is to "pervert... natural, legitimate, human desires." F. Lagard Smith (Troubling Questions for Calvinists, page 134-135).
"Evil is making a bad use of a good thing." Augustine (Confessions and Enchiridion, trans. and ed. by Albert C. Outler, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, N. D, page 326-338, section 36).
============================
5. The occasion of sin and the cause of sin must be distinguished.
-----A. The occasion of sin (temptation) is the lust of the flesh (Gen. 3:6; Rom. 7:5, 23; Gal. 4:14; Jas. 1:14-15).
-----------(1.) The lusts of the flesh are an influence, not causation (1 Cor. 10:13).
“If these feelings are not suffered to influence the will… if such feelings are not cherished, and are not suffered to shake the integrity of the will; they are not sin. That is, the will does not consent to them, but the contrary. They are only temptations. If they are allowed to control the will, to break forth in words and actions, then there is sin; but the sin does not consist in the feelings, but in the consent of the will, to gratify them.” Charles Finney (Systematic Theology pg. 191).
-----B. The cause of sin is the decision or choice of the heart or will (Isa. 14:13-14; Rom. 6:12).
-----------(1.) Men make themselves sinners (Gen. 6:12; Exo. 32:7; Deut. 9:12; 32:5; 1 Sam. 3:13; Jdg. 2:19; Isa. 66:3; Hos. 9:9; Ps. 14:2-3; Isa. 53:6; Ecc. 7:29; Zep. 3:7; Matt. 12:34-35; 15:17-20; Mk. 7:15, 21-22; Lk. 6:45; Rom. 3:23).
-----------(2.) Men originate their sin in their own hearts (Ecc. 7:29; Matt. 12:34-35; 15:17-20; Mk. 7:15, 21-22; Lk. 6:45).
“… all men must look to themselves as the cause of their sin.” Gordon Olson (The Entrance of Sin into the World, pg 10).
“It is the very essence of moral government that man is the sole author of his own actions.” Gordon Olson (The Moral Government of God, pg. 15)
|
|
|
Post by mattmisk on Sept 4, 2008 11:42:22 GMT -5
Right, I don't disagree there. I just think it is a jump in logic to say that since the phrase, "innocent blood" is used, then they are morally innocent. The phrase is used in regards to context of why they were killed, i.e they weren't unjustly killed as opposed to justly killed. For example, see Deut. 19:11-13.
Matt
|
|