By One Man's Disobedience Many Were Made Sinners

[glfredrick]

New thought...

Most of the ones here who are arguing for some sort of innocence stage at the beginning of life also argue that God sees the ones who will eventually express faith in Him, and according to your doctrine you also then see that these are the elect.

My thought is that if God can foresee and know whom will believe by faith so as to become the elect of God, then He can also foresee whom is a sinner, and extend His hand of punishment upon that one.

Equal -- Equal!

So, therefore, there really is no escape for the concept of original sin, even if one comes at it from the perspective that God has to "see" the sin and the person has to "know" the sin before it is counted against the person as sin, for God has already seen it and counted it against that person!

What a contrived theological picture that ends up being... How much easier to just take the biblical picture and realize that our sin is inherited from the fall of Adam and that we are born without hope UNLESS Christ saves!

 

[DHK]

These are all traits that describe the fleshly frame, and not their soul. Their soul comes from God. If the soul comes in an already dead(spiritually seperated from God)state, then OS lays sin in God's lap. Are you willing to accept this?

You still don't get it; and you won't accept direct rhetorical questions by the Lord Himself that must be parallel with each other for a good reason!!
Why is that?

(Jer 13:23) Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Does good and evil describe the outer frame of a man? No.
The man is born in the womb with the genes of black skin.
The leopard is born in the womb with the genes of spots on his "skin."
The man is born in the womb with an inherited sin nature, and cannot help but to do evil, and from hence forth becomes accustomed to doing it.
He is evil from the womb onward, just as the others are.
The three statements are direct parallels.
The third does not teach something different than the first two. That is not the method of teaching that the Lord employs. He is not the author of confusion!

Sin is laid in Adam's lap, not in God's lap. Be careful who you blame, and study your Bible a bit more carefully.

 

[glfredrick]

... and study your Bible a bit more carefully.

I noted this in your post. I'm of a mind that some are studying their Bibles a bit too carefully. They are taking one word or one phrase out of context because they "microscope" in on the jots and tittles instead of using a "telescope" view to see the overall picture of God and God's kingdom as expressed through the Scriptures.

A good New Testament theology course would help many here who have only been exposed to systematic theology, or wore, none at all.

Note that I am not advocating "glancing by" Scripture -- not at all -- but only that in the main part, arguments here often drive from a scriptural miscue that is based on a concordance (or web site) search that provides a "proof text" verse that most of the time does not prove at all what is being argued.

Yes, those verses SAY exactly what they say (well, actually, they are written, so we get to READ them... :laugh and therein lies the problem. What a phrase or verse SAYS out of context with the rest of the Bible is akin to the ancient Catholic practice of allagorizing Scripture. One takes a verse and turns it into a narrative that has nothing at all to do with the actual context, but makes for a nice Bible story to tell people. Problem is, this sort of allagorical theology is not coherent and neither does it present an accurate picture of the entirety of the Word.

 

[Winman]

This particular statement on your part explains much...

You don't really care at all what Scripture says, nor how commentators derive a proper exegesis of Scripture, and the only way one can get at the truth and bottom line of Scripture is to go back to examine the VERY precise original language.

Earlier in this thread you used the Eastern Church's view of Greek to try to refute the position DHK and I are taking here against you. Your reason was that the Eastern Church read the text in Greek while the Western Church read the text in Latin.

Now, when it is convinient -- and when the Greek exegesis shows that you are incorrect you no longer care for the Greek.

I am done arguing with you here, for I find the Scriptures to be plain on your account:

Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν, μηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων μήποτε καταπατήσωσιν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ στραφέντες ῥήξωσιν ὑμᾶς

What? Am I supposed to take you at your word concerning Greek? I have no idea if you have interpreted the Greek properly or not. If you want to have a debate over the Greek with another person who knows Greek, that is fine, but it is meaningless in discussions with folks that do not know Greek.

If we all have to learn Greek to understand the Bible, the Church is in big trouble. My pastor knows and teaches college courses in Greek, but he may be the only person in our church who knows it. What? Are we all supposed to learn Greek? Pure foolishness. I personally trust that the KJB is an accurate translation into English and is completely dependable for doctrine. You may believe otherwise, that is your perogative.

But the fact you know Greek does not mean you necessarily understand scripture better than others.

 

[Winman]

It has nothing to do with knowledge. They "inherited" a sin nature. The do wrong from the day that they are born--speaking lies. One doesn't have to teach them to do that. One must teach them to tell the truth however. Why is that?

How absurd. You are taking scripture that is obvious hyperbole and interpreting it literally. Newborn babies have no concept what a lie even is, how can they tell a lie?

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
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.

#1 David is not speaking of all men here, he is specifically speaking of "the wicked" who are often contrasted to the righteous in the book of Psalms. In fact, that is the case, look at verse 10.

10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

So, this is your first error, David is not speaking of all men.

#2 There is not a baby who has ever been born that is able to speak the day they are born. The scriptures themselves show little children do not know between good and evil (Deut 1:39, Isa 7:16) and therefore cannot possibly tell a lie.

#3 It does not say they are born wicked, it says they go "astray". This is often said of sinners, we are compared to sheep who go astray as in 1 Peter 2:25. You cannot go astray unless you first were in the flock. You err again.

#4 If you take vs. 3 as literal, then you must take vs. 4 as literal. Newborn babies are not poisonous like a serpent.

#5 If you take vs. 3 as literal, then you must take vs. 6 as literal. Babies are not born with teeth, especially great teeth like a young lion.

#6 If you take vs. 3 as literal, then you must take vs. 8 as literal. Babies do not melt like snails.

#7 You would also have to believe that David is praying for every child that has ever been born to melt like a snail, David says, "let every one of them pass away"

You ridicule me for taking scripture out of context when a renowned scholar who wrote one of the most respected commentaries ever written on the Bible agreed with me almost perfectly concerning Ezekiel 18 (and disagreed with your interpretation), and then you take a passage that is obvious hyperbole and interpret it literally. Wow!

Anybody who uses this passage to form doctrine concerning Original Sin is foolish.

 

[DHK]

What? Am I supposed to take you at your word concerning Greek? I have no idea if you have interpreted the Greek properly or not. If you want to have a debate over the Greek with another person who knows Greek, that is fine, but it is meaningless in discussions with folks that do not know Greek.

If we all have to learn Greek to understand the Bible, the Church is in big trouble. My pastor knows and teaches college courses in Greek, but he may be the only person in our church who knows it. What? Are we all supposed to learn Greek? Pure foolishness. I personally trust that the KJB is an accurate translation into English and is completely dependable for doctrine. You may believe otherwise, that is your perogative.

But the fact you know Greek does not mean you necessarily understand scripture better than others.

This is what he said:

You don't really care at all what Scripture says, nor how commentators derive a proper exegesis of Scripture, and the only way one can get at the truth and bottom line of Scripture is to go back to examine the VERY precise original language.

You don't have to know the Greek language. We have many resources at our fingertips that help us understand the Greek. If you fail to use any or consult any then it is you that is at fault. There is no excuse these days not to be acquainted with the original languages in some way, even indirectly.

 

[DHK]

How absurd. You are taking scripture that is obvious hyperbole and interpreting it literally. Newborn babies have no concept what a lie even is, how can they tell a lie?

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
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.

#1 David is not speaking of all men here, he is specifically speaking of "the wicked" who are often contrasted to the righteous in the book of Psalms. In fact, that is the case, look at verse 10.

10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

So, this is your first error, David is not speaking of all men.

#2 There is not a baby who has ever been born that is able to speak the day they are born. The scriptures themselves show little children do not know between good and evil (Deut 1:39, Isa 7:16) and therefore cannot possibly tell a lie.

#3 It does not say they are born wicked, it says they go "astray". This is often said of sinners, we are compared to sheep who go astray as in 1 Peter 2:25. You cannot go astray unless you first were in the flock. You err again.

#4 If you take vs. 3 as literal, then you must take vs. 4 as literal. Newborn babies are not poisonous like a serpent.

#5 If you take vs. 3 as literal, then you must take vs. 6 as literal. Babies are not born with teeth, especially great teeth like a young lion.

#6 If you take vs. 3 as literal, then you must take vs. 8 as literal. Babies do not melt like snails.

#7 You would also have to believe that David is praying for every child that has ever been born to melt like a snail, David says, "let every one of them pass away"

You ridicule me for taking scripture out of context when a renowned scholar who wrote one of the most respected commentaries ever written on the Bible agreed with me almost perfectly concerning Ezekiel 18 (and disagreed with your interpretation), and then you take a passage that is obvious hyperbole and interpret it literally. Wow!

Anybody who uses this passage to form doctrine concerning Original Sin is foolish.

READ CAREFULLY

I never referred to that verse in this conversation, why do you?
Here is the post that I have been using. Stick with it:

You still don't get it; and you won't accept direct rhetorical questions by the Lord Himself that must be parallel with each other for a good reason!!
Why is that?

(Jer 13:23) Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Does good and evil describe the outer frame of a man? No.
The man is born in the womb with the genes of black skin.
The leopard is born in the womb with the genes of spots on his "skin."
The man is born in the womb with an inherited sin nature, and cannot help but to do evil, and from hence forth becomes accustomed to doing it.
He is evil from the womb onward, just as the others are.
The three statements are direct parallels.
The third does not teach something different than the first two. That is not the method of teaching that the Lord employs. He is not the author of confusion!

Sin is laid in Adam's lap, not in God's lap. Be careful who you blame, and study your Bible a bit more carefully.

 

[Winman]

This is what he said:

You don't have to know the Greek language. We have many resources at our fingertips that help us understand the Greek. If you fail to use any or consult any then it is you that is at fault. There is no excuse these days not to be acquainted with the original languages in some way, even indirectly.

I often look up the Greek words behind the English in scripture. Why do you ASSUME I do not? In fact, if you had paid attention, you would see that at times I show the Greek word behind the English in my posts.

 

[DHK]

I often look up the Greek words behind the English in scripture. Why do you ASSUME I do not? In fact, if you had paid attention, you would see that at times I show the Greek word behind the English in my posts.

Then there was no need to castigate glf with these remarks, was there?

If we all have to learn Greek to understand the Bible, the Church is in big trouble. My pastor knows and teaches college courses in Greek, but he may be the only person in our church who knows it. What? Are we all supposed to learn Greek? Pure foolishness. I personally trust that the KJB is an accurate translation into English and is completely dependable for doctrine. You may believe otherwise, that is your perogative.

 

[Winman]

READ CAREFULLY

I never referred to that verse in this conversation, why do you?
Here is the post that I have been using. Stick with it:

Baloney, here is what you said;

The do wrong from the day that they are born--speaking lies.

You were obviously referencing Psa 58:3

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

You must think people are stupid.

 

[DHK]

Baloney, here is what you said;


You were obviously referencing Psa 58:3

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

You must think people are stupid.

I think that you are not wise in using that language against me (and others), when people get infractions for, and eventually banned. Be careful in the future.

Go back in the thread. Where did I use that statement? I used it in the context of Jer.13:23. It wasn't a quote. Use your mind here. Two words doesn't constitute a quote. Even if I did quote the verse, so what. The context is still in Jeremiah 13:23. Deal with the verse. I know. I know. You can't answer it.

 

[Winman]

The context is still in Jeremiah 13:23. Deal with the verse. I know. I know. You can't answer it.

I can answer Jer 13:23, but I doubt if you will accept it.

First, is this passage discussing Original Sin? No, it is God speaking to Israel and Judah.

Jer 13: 11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
12 Therefore thou shalt speak unto them this word; Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Every bottle shall be filled with wine: and they shall say unto thee, Do we not certainly know that every bottle shall be filled with wine?

You always stress context, what is the context here? Is God discussing the doctrine of Original Sin? No. Is he speaking of all men everywhere? No, he is speaking to the house of Israel and the house of Judah only.

God is simply saying that they have become so stubborn, so obstinate in habitual sin that they cannot change. It is not that they cannot in reality change, but they have become hardened in their sin, they will not receive correction. It is a metaphor that God compares them to a leopard who cannot change his spots, or an Ethiopian that cannot change his skin.

I know you will not listen to me, so I again will quote some commentaries.

Matthew Henry

2. It is for their obstinacy in sin, their being so long accustomed to it that there was little hope left of their being reclaimed from it (Jeremiah 13:23): Can the Ethiopian change his skin, that is by nature black, or the leopard his spots, that are even woven into the skin? Dirt contracted may be washed off, but we cannot alter the natural colour of a hair (Matthew 5:36), much less of the skin; and so impossible is it, morally impossible, to reclaim and reform these people. (1.) They had been long accustomed to do evil. They were taught to do evil; they had been educated and brought up in sin; they had served an apprenticeship to it, and had all their days made a trade of it. It was so much their constant practice that it had become a second nature to them.

Do you see what Matthew Henry says? He agrees with me. They have become accustomed to sin, that is, they have learned it, been educated in it, practiced it so often that it had become their “second nature” to sin.

Clarke’s Commentary

Can the Ethiopian change his skin - Can a black, at his own pleasure, change the color of his skin? Can the leopard at will change the variety of his spots? These things are natural to them, and they cannot be altered; so sin, and especially your attachment to idolatry, is become a second nature; and we may as well expect the Ethiopian to change his skin, and the leopard his spots, as you to do good, who have been accustomed to do evil. It is a matter of the utmost difficulty to get a sinner, deeply rooted in vicious habits, brought to the knowledge of himself and God. But the expression does not imply that the thing is as impossible in a moral as it is in a natural sense: it only shows that it is extremely difficult, and not to be often expected; and a thousand matters of fact prove the truth of this. But still, what is impossible to man is possible to God

Clarke also says these men have become accustomed to sin so that it is become a “second nature” to them, It is learned habits.

J,F, & B Commentary

23. Ethiopian-the Cushite of Abyssinia. Habit is second nature; as therefore it is morally impossible that the Jews can alter their inveterate habits of sin, nothing remains but the infliction of the extremest punishment, their expatriation (Jer 13:24).

Again, J, F, & B speak of “habits” (learned behavior) becoming a “second nature”

Now, all of these commentaries agree with me. I did not learn this from these commentaries, but from simply reading the scripture. As I told you, the word “accustomed” means a learned behavior. It means a habit that has been formed by constant practice.

This verse is simply saying these persons have become so hardened and obstinate in their practice of sin, that it is nearly impossible for them to repent or change. This passage is not addressing the subject of Original Sin whatsoever, it is speaking of the house of Israel, and the house of Judah at this particular time.

 

[DHK]

I can answer Jer 13:23, but I doubt if you will accept it.

First, is this passage discussing Original Sin? No, it is God speaking to Israel and Judah.

Jer 13: 11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
12 Therefore thou shalt speak unto them this word; Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Every bottle shall be filled with wine: and they shall say unto thee, Do we not certainly know that every bottle shall be filled with wine?

You always stress context, what is the context here? Is God discussing the doctrine of Original Sin? No. Is he speaking of all men everywhere? No, he is speaking to the house of Israel and the house of Judah only.

God is simply saying that they have become so stubborn, so obstinate in habitual sin that they cannot change. It is not that they cannot in reality change, but they have become hardened in their sin, they will not receive correction. It is a metaphor that God compares them to a leopard who cannot change his spots, or an Ethiopian that cannot change his skin.

I know you will not listen to me, so I again will quote some commentaries.

Matthew Henry



Do you see what Matthew Henry says? He agrees with me. They have become accustomed to sin, that is, they have learned it, been educated in it, practiced it so often that it had become their “second nature” to sin.

Clarke’s Commentary



Clarke also says these men have become accustomed to sin so that it is become a “second nature” to them, It is learned habits.

J,F, & B Commentary


Again, J, F, & B speak of “habits” (learned behavior) becoming a “second nature”

Now, all of these commentaries agree with me. I did not learn this from these commentaries, but from simply reading the scripture. As I told you, the word “accustomed” means a learned behavior. It means a habit that has been formed by constant practice.

This verse is simply saying these persons have become so hardened and obstinate in their practice of sin, that it is nearly impossible for them to repent or change. This passage is not addressing the subject of Original Sin whatsoever, it is speaking of the house of Israel, and the house of Judah at this particular time.

Judah will not escape this ignominious lot, since wickedness has so grown to be its nature, that it can as little cease therefrom and do good, as an Ethiopian can wash out the blackness of his skin, or a panther change it spots. The consequential clause introduced by גַּם אַתֶּם connects with the possibility suggested in, but denied by, the preceding question: if that could happen, then might even ye do good. The one thing is as impossible as the other. And so the Lord must scatter Judah among the heathen, like stubble swept away by the desert wind, lit., passing by with the desert wind. The desert wind is the strong east wind that blows from the Arabian Desert; see on Jer_4:11. Keil & Delitstch

When JFB says it is second nature what does he mean? What is first nature? Second nature means to do that which comes naturally. He does not deny the depravity of man or original sin. He supports it. Again JFB says It is morally impossible that the Jews can later their inevitable habits of sin. This supports my view, not yours.

then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil; signifying that they were naturally sinners, as blackness is natural to the Ethiopian, and spots to the leopard; and were from their birth and infancy such, and had been so long habituated to sin, by custom founded upon nature, that there was no hope of them; they were obstinate in sin, bent upon it, and incorrigible in it; and this is another reason given why the above calamities came upon them.The metaphors used in this text fitly express the state and condition of men by nature; they are like the Ethiopian or blackamoor; very black, both with original and actual sin; very guilty, and very uncomely; and their blackness is natural to them; they have it from their parents, and by birth; it is with them from their infancy, and youth upwards; and very hard and difficult to be removed; it cannot be washed off by ceremonial ablutions, moral duties, evangelical ordinances, or outward humiliations; yea, it is impossible to be removed but by the grace of God and blood of Christ. Their sins are aptly compared to the leopard's spots, which are many and natural, and difficult to get clear off. What is figuratively expressed in the above metaphors is more plainly signified by being "accustomed" or "taught to do evil" (t); which denotes a series and course of sinning; a settled habit and custom in it, founded on nature, and arising from it; which a man learns and acquires naturally, and of himself, whereby he becomes void of fear and shame; and there is a good deal of difficulty, and indeed a moral impossibility, that such persons should "do good": nothing short of the powerful and efficacious grace of God can put a man into a state and capacity of doing good aright, from right principles to right ends, and of continuing in it; for there is no good in such men; nor have they any true notion of doing good, nor inclination to it, nor any ability to perform it: in order to it, it is absolutely necessary that they should first be made good men by the grace of God; that they should be regenerated and quickened by the Spirit of God; that they should be created in Christ Jesus unto good works, and have faith in him; all which is by the grace of God, and not of themselves.

John Gill. It is a good exposition isn't it?

 

[Winman]

When JFB says it is second nature what does he mean? What is first nature? Second nature means to do that which comes naturally. He does not deny the depravity of man or original sin. He supports it. Again JFB says It is morally impossible that the Jews can later their inevitable habits of sin. This supports my view, not yours.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "second nature" as;

An acquired behavior or trait that is so long practiced as to seem innate.

As you see, it is an "acquired" behavior that has been long practiced (habit) so as to "seem" innate. It is not the nature we are born with, it is later acquired through practice or habit. That is why it is called a "second" nature.

John Gill. It is a good exposition isn't it?

Sure, you can find those who agree with you, although John Gill is considered a high or even hyper-Calvinist by many. So, it is only natural he interprets this verse as teaching Total Depravity, when this verse is not speaking of all men, but the house of Israel and Judah. He also does not understand the word "accustomed".

If sin were natural, it would not have to be learned, but would occur naturally. That is why the word "accustomed" is so important, the very definition of "accustomed" means a learned and practiced behavior that has become habit.​

Nobody is born with a cigarette in their mouth, and oftentimes the first time a person smokes they choke and cough, because it is not natural. But as they continue to smoke they become "accustomed" to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02lvgmm4DQ​

Nobody is born with a bottle of whiskey in their hand, and oftentimes a person finds it difficult to drink alcohol at first. But through continued drinking they become "accustomed" to it and it becomes a habit and almost natural for them.​

​

 

[DHK]

Nobody is born with a bottle of whiskey in their hand, and oftentimes a person finds it difficult to drink alcohol at first. But through continued drinking they become "accustomed" to it and it becomes a habit and almost natural for them.​

No one has to be, but give them the chance and they will take it and get drunk. My father always had a good supply of liquor on hand, and my brothers were always trying to get at it. It was their nature. They didn't have to be born with a bottle.

But, as all men are, they were born with a sin nature, just as Jer.13:23 teaches. It is irrefutable. You can try and pit the Arminian scholar or allegorical scholar against the Calvinist scholar. But where common sense makes plain sense then why such nonsense. Your nonsensical view of Jer.13:23 does not fit the context of the verse, in that all three rhetorical questions must be interpreted the same way, just as I have been saying all along, and just as Gill supports what I have been saying. It is not an allegorical piece of Scripture.
​

 

[Winman]

No one has to be, but give them the chance and they will take it and get drunk. My father always had a good supply of liquor on hand, and my brothers were always trying to get at it. It was their nature. They didn't have to be born with a bottle.

But, as all men are, they were born with a sin nature, just as Jer.13:23 teaches. It is irrefutable. You can try and pit the Arminian scholar or allegorical scholar against the Calvinist scholar. But where common sense makes plain sense then why such nonsense. Your nonsensical view of Jer.13:23 does not fit the context of the verse, in that all three rhetorical questions must be interpreted the same way, just as I have been saying all along, and just as Gill supports what I have been saying. It is not an allegorical piece of Scripture.
[/LEFT]
[/LEFT]

And my father NEVER drank. He told us if he ever caught us with a bottle in our hand, he would put it where the sun doesn't shine. So what does that prove?

 

[DHK]

And my father NEVER drank. He told us if he ever caught us with a bottle in our hand, he would put it where the sun doesn't shine. So what does that prove?

It doesn't prove anything. I have children. I never drank either. So what.

All of my children lied very early in age, even from their infancy. I had to teach them to tell the truth, as every parent does. They lie by nature--their sin nature. The Bible attests to this very clearly.

 

[Winman]

It doesn't prove anything. I have children. I never drank either. So what.

All of my children lied very early in age, even from their infancy. I had to teach them to tell the truth, as every parent does. They lie by nature--their sin nature. The Bible attests to this very clearly.

It proves that drinking is a learned behavior. Your brothers saw your father drink and imitated him. My father did not drink and I do not drink.

And children are known for their blunt honesty, not lying. Children do lie at times, but most of the time children tell the absolute truth. In fact, I found an article on the blunt honesty of children.

By age two my toddler had let his first you-did-not-just-say-that fly in public. We were checking out the grocery store, and he said, "Mom she has a big butt." He was referring to our cashier, and he was quite correct, but that doesn't change that it was quite rude. I'm a pretty strong supporter of the concept of complete and blunt honesty, but even I understand there are times when keeping the truth to one's self is just the right thing to do. Had our checker asked if her butt was big, my logic denotes she hear the truth, but unrequested it becomes simply hurtful and rude. Unsurprisingly, I am not the only parent to fall victim to unedited honesty spewing from the mouths of children in public places.

A few examples…

"Hunter, in reaction to being asked what an odor in a courthouse was replied, 'That's the smell of the fungus that grows on fat people in the folds of skin that they can't really get to to wash'" - Kathy, Hamlet, Ind.

"Adriana, age 7, has bright red hair and freckles. She's so Irish she might be made of Kerrygold butter. She goes to ballet class in south Dallas. She announces after her first day to the whole crowd of adults, quite astonished, 'I'm the only little girl who isn't brown!'" - Naoko, Euless, Texas

"Mya, age four, said, 'Mom! Look at that big lady! Big 'ol, big 'ol, taaaallll lady,' in Walmart.'" - Becky, Soldotna, Alaska

"The guy I work with who is black, said, 'Give me some skin,' and my son says, 'No, your hands all dirty!'" - Anonymous

When young children say rude things it's not intentionally rude, more innocently, overly honest. The question is how do you stop your kids from letting such comments slip in public and how do you handle them when they do?

Children by nature are honest, not liars. Because folks are taught Total Depravity, they often see sin in children where it doesn't exist. For instance, I have heard people say a baby will feign hunger to be picked up. First, how in the world do they know what the child is thinking? Why can't the child be crying because he or she wants to be picked up? What is wrong with that? A child wants to be held and loved by their parents, it is the most natural thing in the world. But because folks have been sold Total Depravity, they believe all sorts of nonsense like this.

A lie requires intent. If you say something wrong without intent, it is a mistake, not a lie. Very small children have no concept of what lying is, therefore they cannot lie. I don't believe most children can even conceive of what a lie is until they are at least 2 or 3 years old. When they do understand what a lie is, and choose to lie, then they have done something wrong.

If a small child sees a cowboy movie, then picks his father's gun and shoots his sister, has he done wrong? No. He does not truly understand what he is doing. He does not truly know he is going to injure his sister. No court in the land would hold this child responsible and rightly so. God's law is no different, God does not hold little children who do not truly understand the difference between good and evil accountable.

Deut 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.

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

The scriptures show that little children at first do not know the difference between good and evil.

Jon 4:10 Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:
11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

Do you see what God says here? He asks Jonah whether he SHOULD spare Nineveh. He was asking Jonah whether it was JUST to spare Nineveh. And it was just. Why? Because there were 120,000 young innocent children who could not tell their right hand from their left hand. God compares them to cattle who also have no concept of right and wrong.

 

[DHK]

Deut 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.

Honestly! Why do you continue to take Scripture out of its context??
From Jer.13, Ez.18; Deu.1, and in Eccl., everywhere you take Scripture and try and make it mean something it doesn't. This verse does not teach what you are saying it does. It is NOT teaching about infants.

Look at a parallel passage:
(Num 14:28) Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:

(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,

(Num 14:30) Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.

(Num 14:31) But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised.

The "little ones" were twenty and under. A nineteen year old has a good understanding of what is going on. But he "didn't have the right to vote until twenty," perhaps. That is what it is talking about. We still consider our teenagers children. Our "teens" don't know everything, they just think they do. They are still children, even at 19. This is what the verse is talking about. Context, read the context!!

 

[Winman]

Honestly! Why do you continue to take Scripture out of its contexat??
From Jer.13, Ez.18; Deu.1, and in Eccl., everywhere you take Scripture and try and make it mean something it doesn't. This verse does not teach what you are saying it does. It is NOT teaching about infants.

You truly lack discernment. I can show you many scholars who say this is infants.

Barnes

Should I not spare? - literally "have pity" and so "spare." God waives for the time the fact of the repentance of Nineveh, and speaks of those on whom man must have pity, those who never had any share in its guilt, the 120,000 children of Nineveh, "I who, in the weakness of infancy, knew not which hand, "the right" or "the left," is the stronger and fitter for every use." He who would have spared Sodom "for ten's sake," might well be thought to spare Nineveh for the 120,000's sake, in whom the inborn corruption had not developed into the malice of willful sin. If these 120,000 were the children under three years old, they were 15 (as is calculated) of the whole population of Nineveh. If of the 600,000 of Nineveh all were guilty, who by reason of age could be, above 15 were innocent of actual sin.

Clarke

How much is the city better than the shrub? But besides this there are in it one hundred and twenty thousand persons! And shall I destroy them, rather than thy shade should be withered or thy word apparently fail? And besides, these persons are young, and have not offended, (for they knew not the difference between their right hand and their left), and should not I feel more pity for those innocents than thou dost for the fine flowering plant which is withered in a night, being itself exceedingly short-lived?

Gill

for then it would not have appeared to be so great a city; but infants only, as next described:
that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; do not know one from another; cannot distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong; are not come to years of maturity and discretion; and therefore there were room and reason for pity and sparing mercy; especially since they had not been guilty of actual transgressions, at least not very manifest; and yet must have perished with their parents had Nineveh been overthrown. The number of infants in this city is a proof of the greatness of it,

Geneva Study Bible

Meaning that they were children and infants.

Wesley

Here are more than six - score innocents who are infants. Much cattle - Beside men, women and children who are in Nineveh, there are many other of my creatures that are not sinful, and my tender mercies are and shall be over all my works. If thou wouldest be their butcher, yet I will be their God.

J, F, and B

11. that cannot discern between their right hand and their left-children under three of four years old (De 1:39). Six score thousand of these, allowing them to be a fifth of the whole, would give a total population of six hundred thousand. much cattle-God cares even for the brute creatures, of which man takes little account. These in wonderful powers and in utility are far above the shrub which Jonah is so concerned about. Yet Jonah is reckless as to their destruction and that of innocent children.

You truly lack discernment.