God took David's child's life - a contradicion in the Bible?

zoidar said:

I think when it comes to sin, God allowed it into the world, and that He can even use evil or sin for His purpose. I don't think God intended the fall of man, so from one perspective He intended everyone for paradise.

Click to expand...

I just can't understand the notion that the meaning of 'omnipotence' allows for events unexpected by God. To me, it is contrary to logic.

But, in case you haven't read posts in the threads where we have dealt with this question, the innocent AND IGNORANT pre-fall humans were not familiar with the love, glory and power of God that the Redeemed WILL see in Heaven. Certainly the degree of love of God is manifest in his sacrifice, but that is not my point here --it is the KIND of love!

Adam and Eve's being, even as made in God's image, was not what the Angels desire to look into. They are still amazed and puzzled at God's plan, and will be until the sons of God are revealed, made for a little while lower than the angels, but later upgraded to unity with Christ --PART OF CHRIST! THAT is what Adam and Eve lacked, and Christ's death on our behalf is what it took to accomplish it. Knowledge of Good and Evil, and now, the Tree of Life!

bling said:

I did not say aborted children do not have a purpose, but they in that state they are in cannot fulfill an objective.

Click to expand...

Does that not imply that Chance, or Fate, or Human Will, or Satans' will, or some other thing, fact or principle overrules the will of God? How is such a thing possible? I have never seen God take back seat, except in OUR fallen, human, assessment of reality.

Ezekiel 18:20 is the rule, but God can make exceptions.

Mark Quayle said:

Does that not imply that Chance, or Fate, or Human Will, or Satans' will, or some other thing, fact or principle overrules the will of God? How is such a thing possible? I have never seen God take back seat, except in OUR fallen, human, assessment of reality.

Click to expand...

God in His wisdom willed humans to have a very little limited autonomous free will ability to make very limited free will choices that will provide the human with the ability to obtain Godly type Love as an undeserved gift. This "Love" is extremely unique and cannot be made instinctive to man (like some knee jerk reaction) and really a robotic type love. It also cannot be learned, developed, forced on a person, earned or paid back. This Love makes us like God Himself. God controls everything to provide each mature adult human with the opportunity to make a true choice with options to accept or reject God's Love as charity. "Our will" is not "overruling God's will", since it is only by God's will we have such power and He can take it away at any time.
This is why we spend time on earth and an earth like place is the only place to have the opportunity to obtain Godly type Love.

bling said:

God in His wisdom willed humans to have a very little limited autonomous free will ability to make very limited free will choices that will provide the human with the ability to obtain Godly type Love as an undeserved gift.

Click to expand...

Then humans have something to boast of.

And this makes it a salvation is based on works, i.e. "the will to choose God."

Which contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9.

"Undeserved" means "un-merited." I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Edit: There is also no scripture supporting the claim that God allows any free will. "Free will" is one of those Enlightenment-era buzzwords we carelessly toss around as-if we knew what it means, when it's actually quite vague. Can God be surprised? Well if that's true, then God is not omniscient. And if God is not omniscient, then God is not omnipotent. And if God is not omnipotent. . .

zoidar said:

I know it's a philosophical question and an philosophical answer is needed. I see what you say, and it makes somewhat sense. I just can't see it that way. I will quote what I wrote to Mark:

"It's very troublesome for me to think that God created the Eden and man for the purpose of the fall, so man could be forgiven by Christ and enter heaven. When I read the story of creation in Genesis I don't see anything that gives me the idea that God had planned a fall. On the contrary God was very pleased with what He had created, and all was good."

Click to expand...

"Good" is not perfect like Christ is perfect.
"Fall" is not used to describe Adam and Eve's first sin, like when my child first sinned I did not consider it a "fall", but part of their maturing process, a teaching opportunity, and a way to better understand forgiveness.
Adam and Eve and all of us learn a great deal about: God, sin, satan, Love, needs, limited resources, temptation, relationships, marriage, justice, knowledge, conscience and other stuff from this very brief Garden story, it would take a book to try to explain it all without this little story.

zoidar said:

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”
— 2 Samuel 12:13-14

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
— Ezekiel 18:20

I'm sure this question has been raised before. The punishment seems just to David for his aweful crime against Uriah, but David's child was innocent, yet the child was punished for David's sin. And in Ezekiel 18:20 we read that the son will not bear the father's iniquity, yet this seems to be exactly what happend.

We can say that sure we are all guilty before God, just being born sinners, but throughtout the Bible we don't see God punish people just because of that, but because of our own sinful acts. But here it seems to be an exception. Please share your thought through comments.

Click to expand...

The "soul" who sins will die.

The infants body died. The infant is blameless in regard to judgment of sins. No guilt.

Don't you think God would comfort that infant in paradise? I do.

Paulomycin said:

Then humans have something to boast of.

And this makes it a salvation is based on works, i.e. "the will to choose God."

Which contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9.

"Undeserved" means "un-merited." I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Edit: There is also no scripture supporting the claim that God allows any free will. "Free will" is one of those Enlightenment-era buzzwords we carelessly toss around as-if we knew what it means, when it's actually quite vague. Can God be surprised? Well if that's true, then God is not omniscient. And if God is not omniscient, then God is not omnipotent. And if God is not omnipotent. . .

Click to expand...

have to go now will get back with you.

bling said:

God in His wisdom willed humans to have a very little limited autonomous free will ability to make very limited free will choices that will provide the human with the ability to obtain Godly type Love as an undeserved gift. This "Love" is extremely unique and cannot be made instinctive to man (like some knee jerk reaction) and really a robotic type love. It also cannot be learned, developed, forced on a person, earned or paid back. This Love makes us like God Himself. God controls everything to provide each mature adult human with the opportunity to make a true choice with options to accept or reject God's Love as charity. "Our will" is not "overruling God's will", since it is only by God's will we have such power and He can take it away at any time.
This is why we spend time on earth and an earth like place is the only place to have the opportunity to obtain Godly type Love.

Click to expand...

Is this not human reasoning, the extrapolation of what we do know, but rather as words than as understanding? Nowhere in Scripture does it say humans have some limited autonomy, at least, not as you use it here. In fact, the very notion is self-contradictory.

Autonomy as you use it here, is the same as Sovereignty. And there is only one Sovereign. To avoid getting into all the uses that do not mean what God alone is, (such as the sovereignty of one state compared to the rest, or such), your use implies independence from God, which to whatever degree is still independence from God. Creatures have no such independence. WILL, they do have. Choice, they do have. Independent agency, no. At least certainly not as though God did not control all things.

zoidar said:

Yes, I'm sure God would comfort that baby. But still life got a value here. Is it a blessing when a Christian is killed? Of course not. It's a terrible thing! Still it's a blessing for that Christian to enter heaven. So I think we need to separate the two, the value of life here and the value of life to come after death.

Click to expand...

But it is not ours to separate. (Nor is it ours to combine). We can only think about it --it is not in our bailiwick.

We are sure life here is of real value, but we don't have God's point of view as to why, really. Just the fact that it is. We certainly don't understand the relationship between the value of life here and the value of life there. We know very little about it, by comparison with what God has made.

This is beyond us.

zoidar said:

Yes, I'm sure God would comfort that baby. But still life got a value here. Is it a blessing when a Christian is killed? Of course not. It's a terrible thing! Still it's a blessing for that Christian to enter heaven. So I think we need to separate the two, the value of life here and the value of life to come after death.

Click to expand...

I agree and when we separate the two, your cry of contradiction goes away as is usual when we think we have found a discrepancy in the scripture, its just a lack of understanding.

zoidar said:

Yes, I'm sure God would comfort that baby. But still life got a value here. Is it a blessing when a Christian is killed? Of course not. It's a terrible thing! Still it's a blessing for that Christian to enter heaven. So I think we need to separate the two, the value of life here and the value of life to come after death.

Click to expand...

The child is alive and will never die.

There will come a day that it will be a blessing.
Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." "Yes," says the Spirit, "they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them."

Perhaps in the same manner God with His eyes spared the child from a future evil?? We never know all the things God considers. We do know no one loves more than the Father and no fault can be found in Him. So I don't look. His judgment's are righteous.

Paulomycin said:

Then humans have something to boast of.

And this makes it a salvation is based on works, i.e. "the will to choose God."

Which contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9.

"Undeserved" means "un-merited." I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Edit: There is also no scripture supporting the claim that God allows any free will. "Free will" is one of those Enlightenment-era buzzwords we carelessly toss around as-if we knew what it means, when it's actually quite vague. Can God be surprised? Well if that's true, then God is not omniscient. And if God is not omniscient, then God is not omnipotent. And if God is not omnipotent. . .

Click to expand...

First off do you agree with the following:

Unbelieving sinful man cannot of his own free will do anything noble, honorable, worthy, righteous or holy, but he/she can do stuff for selfish reasons?

If sinful man did make an autonomous free will choice to follow Christ that would be an honorable, righteous, and worthy of something choice, so sinful man cannot make such a choice?

Just because we know somethings are predestined does not mean everything is predestined?

Just because one can show man does not make free will choices sometimes does not mean man does not have free will in other areas?

God has in human terms “foreknowledge” of everything?

God is outside of time and not limited by human time?

From God’s perspective there is no before or after in the human universe, but God expressing himself anthropomorphically to humans using our understanding of time in communicating with us?

God’s omnipresent ability would include God existing throughout time?

God in His existence with perfect knowledge at the end of human time would know “historically” every thought and decision of humans throughout human existence?

Since God at the end of time is outside of time, He could send all historical information back to Himself at the beginning of time?

History cannot be changed: if it happened it happened even if God was the only one to know about some happening it cannot be changed, but God could do it over another way if he wanted?

Just the fact God (or anyone else for that matter) at the end of time knows historically all the choices a person made, does not keep, some of those choices, when they were made, from being autonomous free will choices?

God has the power to provide humans with at least some limited autonomous free will choices if He desired?

If man needed to have some very limited autonomous free will in order to fulfill man’s earthly object, God’s Love for humans would be great enough to provide humans with this very limited free will, virtual miraculous, ability?

God could certainly predestine to save all humans who fulfilled their earthly objective, if God wanted to without changing anything in scripture?


Here is what we might not agree with:

The one autonomous free will choice mature adults need to be able to make in order to complete their earthly objective is to humbly accept or reject God’s help (charity/mercy/grace/Love/forgiveness) as pure charity. In other words: sinful humans can choose to hang in there, be macho, pay the piper and take the punishment they fully deserve or they can wimp out, give up and surrender to their hated enemy, while they still hate their enemy (God) they are just willing to humbly accept their enemy’s undeserved pure charity. They still might feel they deserve from their enemy to be severely tortured to death, for their previous war crimes, yet they are willing to take undeserved charity. They are not being righteous, holy, glorious, honorable, worthy and noble in what they are doing, since it is for selfish reasons, they are willing to accept their enemy’s charity.

God is not forcing his charity on the sinner like some kind of shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun, since that would not be Loving on God’s part nor would the sinner obtain Godly type Love in that manner. By accepting this Love in the form of forgiveness Jesus has taught us “…he who is forgiven much Loves much…” so humbly accept pure undeserved forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt automatically results in the former sinner receiving an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love) and thus fulfill the first part of sinners earthly objective.

You are not using the most likely interpretation of Ep. 2:8-9:

People use Eph 2:8 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” to show “faith” is a gift and forget about verse 9 which says: “not by works, so that no one can boast.” The gift cannot be grammatical correct and be “faith”, but you do not have to know Greek, just look at verse 9. If “faith” were the gift then Paul is telling us faith cannot be worked for and earned which is not logical or discussed as even an option anywhere else. How would people go about working to obtain faith anyway (it is to quit working, trying to do it yourself and start trusting). The “gift” in Eph. 2:8 is the whole salvation process which Paul talks about in other places, showing people trying to earn salvation.


I can look up genders and dust off my Greek New Testament, but here is what Barnes and Robertson have to say and they do an honest job as far as I can tell:


And that not of yourselves - That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered "that" - ͂ touto - is in the neuter gender, and the word "faith" - ́ pistis - is in the feminine. The word "that," therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to "the salvation by grace" of which he had been speaking. This is the interpretation of the passage which is the most obvious, and which is now generally conceded to be the true one; see Bloomfield. Many critics, however, as Doddridge, Beza, Piscator, and Chrysostom, maintain that the word "that" ( ͂ touto ) refers to "faith" ( ́ pistis ); and Doddridge maintains that such a use is common in the New Testament. As a matter of grammar this opinion is certainly doubtful, if not untenable; but as a matter of theology it is a question of very little importance.



Robertson, on the topic of pronouns, wrote:

9. Gender and Number of outos. ... In general, like other adjectives, outos agrees with its substantive in gender and number, whether predicate or attributive. ... In Eph. 2:8 , ..., there is no reference to pisteos in touto, but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, p.704)


Robertson, on the topic of particles, wrote:

(ii) Kai. ... The Mere Connective ('And') ... kai tauta (frequent in ancient Greek). See in particular Eph. 2:8 , kai touto ouk ex umon, where touto refers to the whole conception, not to chariti. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 1181-1182)


Robertson, on the topic of prepositions, wrote:

(d) dia ... 3. 'Passing Between' or 'Through.' The idea of interval between leads naturally to that of passing between two objects or parts of objects. 'Through' is thus not the original meaning of dia, but is a very common one. ... The agent may also be expressed by dia. This function was also performed in the ancient Greek, through, when means or instrument was meant, the instrumental case was commonly employed. dia is thus used with inanimate and animate objects. Here, of course, the agent is conceived as coming in between the non-attainmnet and the attainment of the object in view. ... Abstract ideas are frequently so expressed, as sesosmenoi dia pisteos (Eph. 2:8 ), ... (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 580-582)



"Gift" and "faith," are both nouns and would not need to agree. However, agreement in gender is necessary between a pronoun and its antecedent. The demonstrative pronoun will change its gender to match the previous noun (or other substantive) to which it refers.


This verse tells us that the antecedent for "This" is also the "gift of God." But the "gift" cannot be "faith" because there is no agreement in gender between "faith" and the demonstrative pronoun, "touto" (This).


You can look up lots of Greek scholars work and let me know if you find any one disagreeing with this, because I have not among scholars.


Verses supporting free will

Gen. 1-3 Did Adam and Eve have free will?

Exodus 35:29 “All the Israelite men and women who were willing brought to the Lord freewill offerings for all the work the Lord through Moses had commanded them to do.” Are these truly free will offerings?

Jonah 3: 10 “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.” Did the people of Nineveh change what God said he would do?

Jer. 18: 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

How is this not saying that God’s actions are contingent on the choices of the people?

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." (John 5:39-40). Note that Jesus does not say, "you cannot come", which the Greek does not say here, but, "you refuse to come", in order that you may have eternal life. It was their own rejection of Jesus and the Gospel, that would damn their souls, and not because they were "unable" to make the "choice" themselves.

Christ is God here on earth. The “whomsoever” does not mean only the elect, but lots of people, who then made the choice to accept or reject Christ. "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." (John 5:39-40)

To say: “Christ only reveals Himself to those who God have chosen to accept Him”, means God is guilty of not helping others to accept Christ.

John 15: 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

If they have no free will, they have an excellent excuse for sinning?

There are all the “whosoever” verses making it contingent.

HTacianas said:

The son was not punished by death. David was punished by the loss of his son.

Click to expand...

David should have been killed, but God killed his son instead. His child received the punishment.

Mark Quayle said:

Is this not human reasoning, the extrapolation of what we do know, but rather as words than as understanding? Nowhere in Scripture does it say humans have some limited autonomy, at least, not as you use it here. In fact, the very notion is self-contradictory.

Autonomy as you use it here, is the same as Sovereignty. And there is only one Sovereign. To avoid getting into all the uses that do not mean what God alone is, (such as the sovereignty of one state compared to the rest, or such), your use implies independence from God, which to whatever degree is still independence from God. Creatures have no such independence. WILL, they do have. Choice, they do have. Independent agency, no. At least certainly not as though God did not control all things.

Click to expand...

You would do good to read all of my post 117, but to your specific question “Creatures have no such independence.”:

Why would it be impossible for God to miraculously provide some limited autonomous free will to some people? Does God say He will not?

Did satan and the angels make an autonomous free will choice to rebel?

Jer. 18: 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

How is this not saying that God’s actions are contingent on the choices of people?

Adam and Eve were very limited in what they could do, but could they act as independent agents in choosing to eat or not eat the fruit?

zoidar said:

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”
— 2 Samuel 12:13-14

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
— Ezekiel 18:20

I'm sure this question has been raised before. The punishment seems just to David for his aweful crime against Uriah, but David's child was innocent, yet the child was punished for David's sin. And in Ezekiel 18:20 we read that the son will not bear the father's iniquity, yet this seems to be exactly what happend.

We can say that sure we are all guilty before God, just being born sinners, but throughtout the Bible we don't see God punish people just because of that, but because of our own sinful acts. But here it seems to be an exception. Please share your thought through comments.

Click to expand...

You're assuming that God couldn't rescue for eternal life that child. Well, he did it for John the Baptist when he was 6 months along in his mother's womb, and Jeremiah was saved from his mother's womb. We are all judged for our own sins from conception on, but God can regenerate babies during any time during that span too.