Examining Is. 7:15-16 as a proof text for refuting inherited original sin from Adam.

[Dead Orthodoxy]

Is. 7:15-16  He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.  For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

Some modern credobaptists are loath to affirm mankind inherits Adam’s moral guilt before God.   However, they do believe that all of mankind inherits “death” from Adam’s fall.   So it is “no” to original sin, but “yes” to original death.

The major  proof texts credobaptists appeal  to concerning the Age of Accountability are Is. 7:15-16, Duet 1:39. Ezek. 18:20, Romans 9:11, Romans 7:9.   Paedobaptists will appeal to texts like Romans 5:12-18, I Cor. 15:22,  Romans 3:23, and Romans 6:23 and believe that mankind does inherit guilt from Adam.  

The way that Scripture develops the Doctrine of Original Sin, allows no fence sitters.   You’re either be on one side of the fence or the other.  And you can’t have a Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Methodism, Roman Catholicism or historic western Christendom without the belief in Adam’s imputed or inherited sin.  But you can have a Baptist theology with the belief of non-imputed guilt.

THE CONTENTION OF ISAIAH 7: 15-16. Credobaptists believe when Isaiah’s son Shear-jashub is old enough to “refuse evil and choose good” is a functional equivalent of guiltlessness before God prior to the Age of Accountability.  Paedobaptists don’t believe this at all.  For Paedobaptists, “to refuse evil and choose good” is a Hebraism which is linguistically equivalent to maturity and immaturity.   It has nothing to do with guiltlessness before God of Isaiah’s child and the context of Isaiah 7 bears this out.

What vs. 15 means is when Isaiah’s child can distinguish between the mild taste of curds (substance of milk obtained by coagulation, like cottage cheese) and the appreciate the harsher taste of honey, Jerusalem will be safe from a military attack from the Northern Kingdom and Syria.  A toddler will eat mild food like cottage cheese but will spit out harsher tasting foods like honey.   As the child grows and matures he will be able to eat honey.

Within the larger context of Is. 7, Ahaz in Jerusalem is deeply troubled about being invaded by the alliance of Northern Israel and Syrian. God tells Isaiah with young his son Shear-jashub, to go to Ahaz and have Ahaz ask for a sign from God for Jerusalem not to be conquered. Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, but God gives Ahaz two signs anyway.  The first sign is a remote and Messianic (7:14); the second sign is when Isaiah’s son has mature enough to appreciate the taste of honey (refuse evil and choose good) the two kings planning to conquer Jerusalem will not be a threat any more “two kings you dread will be forsaken.”  Within a few years Shear-jashub is able to eat honey, Assyria had already conquered the Northern Kingdom and Syria and took them into captivity.  God saves Jerusalem through the sign of Isaiah's son.

Many times credos just cut and paste Scripture verses as proof text, without studying the context.  The same can be said about Duet 1:39  And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land."

 

[AdHoc]

3 hours ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

Is. 7:15-16  He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.  For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

Some modern credobaptists are loath to affirm mankind inherits Adam’s moral guilt before God.   However, they do believe that all of mankind inherits “death” from Adam’s fall.   So it is “no” to original sin, but “yes” to original death.

The major  proof texts credobaptists appeal  to concerning the Age of Accountability are Is. 7:15-16, Duet 1:39. Ezek. 18:20, Romans 9:11, Romans 7:9.   Paedobaptists will appeal to texts like Romans 5:12-18, I Cor. 15:22,  Romans 3:23, and Romans 6:23 and believe that mankind does inherit guilt from Adam.  

The way that Scripture develops the Doctrine of Original Sin, allows no fence sitters.   You’re either be on one side of the fence or the other.  And you can’t have a Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Methodism, Roman Catholicism or historic western Christendom without the belief in Adam’s imputed or inherited sin.  But you can have a Baptist theology with the belief of non-imputed guilt.

THE CONTENTION OF ISAIAH 7: 15-16. Credobaptists believe when Isaiah’s son Shear-jashub is old enough to “refuse evil and choose good” is a functional equivalent of guiltlessness before God prior to the Age of Accountability.  Paedobaptists don’t believe this at all.  For Paedobaptists, “to refuse evil and choose good” is a Hebraism which is linguistically equivalent to maturity and immaturity.   It has nothing to do with guiltlessness before God of Isaiah’s child and the context of Isaiah 7 bears this out.

What vs. 15 means is when Isaiah’s child can distinguish between the mild taste of curds (substance of milk obtained by coagulation, like cottage cheese) and the appreciate the harsher taste of honey, Jerusalem will be safe from a military attack from the Northern Kingdom and Syria.  A toddler will eat mild food like cottage cheese but will spit out harsher tasting foods like honey.   As the child grows and matures he will be able to eat honey.

Within the larger context of Is. 7, Ahaz in Jerusalem is deeply troubled about being invaded by the alliance of Northern Israel and Syrian. God tells Isaiah with young his son Shear-jashub, to go to Ahaz and have Ahaz ask for a sign from God for Jerusalem not to be conquered. Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, but God gives Ahaz two signs anyway.  The first sign is a remote and Messianic (7:14); the second sign is when Isaiah’s son has mature enough to appreciate the taste of honey (refuse evil and choose good) the two kings planning to conquer Jerusalem will not be a threat any more “two kings you dread will be forsaken.”  Within a few years Shear-jashub is able to eat honey, Assyria had already conquered the Northern Kingdom and Syria and took them into captivity.  God saves Jerusalem through the sign of Isaiah's son.

Many times credos just cut and paste Scripture verses as proof text, without studying the context.  The same can be said about Duet 1:39  And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land."

 

Interesting. I can see why certain men use these verses, but what do they do with the unambiguous scriptures that affirm the sin-nature of even the unborn? I agree with your summation, but would like to deal with Isaiah 7 and Deuteronomy 1 in a simpler way - mainly for the young Christian. The solution is in the grammar. They both address "KNOWLEDGE" of sin. One does not have to have "knowledge" of sin to display its nature. The "knowledge" of sin surely is for the maturer man (or age of accountability) but it pertains to the FRUIT of the sin-nature, namely TRESPASSES. The two-year-old who pulls the cat's tail or has a tantrum, displays the nature but has no recognition that it is evil - though evil it is. The teenager who puts the cat into a tub of boiling water displays the same nature but conscience has its work and he/she senses good and evil. 

Besides the grammar, the well versed student of scripture must know of the difference between the "Sin-Offering" and the "Trespass Offering". Christ was the fulfillment of both.

Added to this, Genesis 1:11-12 makes the doctrine man's sin-nature immutable. God has set forth a Law that anything with a seed within itself will produce the same kind. Adam had no offspring before the fall. That is, every man ever to come out of Adam's loins MUST have the sin-nature by the Law of "kinds". And one need go no further than Genesis Chapter 5 to affirm this. Adam, made in God's likeness, did not produce a man in God's likeness. He produced a man in HIS (Adam's) OWN likeness.

Genesis 5:1–3 (NKJV)

¹This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

...

³And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

No wonder the line of Adam must be removed from the insemination of Jesus.

Finally, logic should have settled the matter. If the wages of sin (singular) is death, and all men IN Adam die (Rom.5:23, 1st Cor.15:22), it is given that all men had "sin" (singular). And this is brutally proven in that babies, in or out of the mother's womb - before they have "known" evil - still die on a daily basis. And this is why, in John 1:29, in contrast to 1st John 2:2, our Lord Jesus must die for the "sin" (singular) of the world. It again shows that if God wants to resurrect every man, this terrible legacy that afflicts both the fetus and the hoary-headed man, must be put away from before God. As long as one man carries Adam's nature, 1st Corinthians 15:22 cannot be fulfilled.  

²¹ For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. ²² For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive

 

[Dead Orthodoxy]

26 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

I agree with your summation, but would like to deal with Isaiah 7 and Deuteronomy 1 in a simpler way - mainly for the young Christian.

Thanks for your post.  Did me well.  You stated you wanted a simpler way....Let me go simpler.   With respect to Duet. 1:39 the "little ones" and "children" are twenty years of age and younger as found in Numbers 13-14.  Those who were under 20 years were allowed to go into the promised land BUT NOT EXEMPTED FROM GOD'S JUDGEMENT.  Those under twenty years still had to wander in the desert for forty years.   Those under twenty years who were allowed to go into the promised land is a picture of God's mercy and grace, not due to fact they were guiltless individuals or merited anything special because of their age.  The universal judgment for all Israelites in Numbers 13-14 is an indicator of the universal sinfulness of all mankind.  God is a just God.   If those under 20 are without person sin and guilt as some credobaptist believe, then God's judgment would clearly be unjust because they have not merited the suffering they must endure. The only way that makes sense is those under twenty sinned in Adam, and the God's judgment upon them is seen as just and yet merciful.

[AdHoc]

29 minutes ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

Thanks for your post.  Did me well.  You stated you wanted a simpler way....Let me go simpler.   With respect to Duet. 1:39 the "little ones" and "children" are twenty years of age and younger as found in Numbers 13-14.  Those who were under 20 years were allowed to go into the promised land BUT NOT EXEMPTED FROM GOD'S JUDGEMENT.  Those under twenty years still had to wander in the desert for forty years.   Those under twenty years who were allowed to go into the promised land is a picture of God's mercy and grace, not due to fact they were guiltless individuals or merited anything special because of their age.  The universal judgment for all Israelites in Numbers 13-14 is an indicator of the universal sinfulness of all mankind.  God is a just God.   If those under 20 are without person sin and guilt as some credobaptist believe, then God's judgment would clearly be unjust because they have not merited the suffering they must endure. The only way that makes sense is those under twenty sinned in Adam, and the God's judgment upon them is seen as just and yet merciful.

Yeah. Numbers 14 says in the opening verses that "all the people" (Joshua and Caleb exempted) wept and murmured. Now that you bring that up, the narrative of the fiery serpents is another example of the sin-nature. The people murmur. God does not shut their mouths and so deal with the TRESPASS. He allows poison to flow in their blood to show them that the onset of death is in their very being. And then, when they looked upon the Brazen Serpent, they were NOT HEALED! They "LIVED" (Nu.21:9). This indicates that the underlying problem was not the murmuring. That was the FRUIT. The underlying problem was the serpentine portion coursing  through their inward parts. This confirmed by the context of John 12 where our Lord alludes to this event. The context points to the inner problem:

Christ will release His inner life like a grain of wheat does. This is only for the Church

The "kind" of death He would die was to deal with the Prince of this world who had the power of death. So i Numbers He takes the form of a serpent. But it is Brazen, showing judgment, but without the nature of the serpent.

His death would not draw the Church only, but "ALL men". This again alludes to John 1:29 where His death is so that all men can be resurrected. The sin-nature causes death to all men. Its solution is Christ's death as the Lamb. In Egypt, had any Egyptians applied the blood of the Lamb, the angel would have Passed over them. The angel only looked for the blood - not the behavior. According to Joshua 24 and Stephen in Acts 7, Israel were worshipping Egyptian demon gods as much as the Egyptians were. The Lamb was to thwart DEATH. But as per promise of God after the Golden Calf, Israel suffer RETRIBUTION in Assyria and Babylon

The sin-nature causes physical DEATH. That why babies can die. Its solution is resurrection. Christ's death (Jn.1:29) allows God JUDICIALLY to raise all men without hurting His righteousness.

The trespasses that come out of the sin-nature cause RETRIBUTION. The "retribution" falls either on Jesus and allows God to JUDICIALLY spare a man, or it falls on the man and he must pay in the Lake of Fire. This is Christ's death of 1st Jn.2.2.

Thanks for the exchange of ideas. Go well.