• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is Deuteronomy 1:39 a proof text for infantile purity?

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,259
800
Oregon
✟164,690.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Text: Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.

Contextually, this verse refers Numbers 13-14 where Israelite spies were sent into the land of Caanan, lied about what they saw and convinced Israel leaders and elders to murmur against Moses. For the sin of grumbling, judged the whole of Israel, forcing them to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, and only those under the age of twenty would be able of enter the promised land.

For many Credobaptists and those to deny original sin, who hold to the Age of Accountability this verse teaches children below the age of accountability were exempt from God’s judgement due to their age—— “our little ones” who have “no knowledge of good and evil.” They reason those that have “no knowledge of good and evil” at minimum are morally neutral or as extreme as being sinless or guiltless.

My contention is "knowledge of good and evil" is a Hebraism which yields a closer linguistic fit meaning "maturity and immaturity" rather than sinlessness or guiltlessness. See my previous post OP 12/4 on Is. 7:14.

The question is raised: Were the “little ones” who had “no knowledge of good and evil” exempt from God’s judgment of Israel. ABSOLUTELY NOT. The judgment placed upon the “little ones” was they were forced to wander for 40 years in the desert. The exemption of death is seen as a pardon and an act of pure grace by God allowing the promises to Abraham to continue.

This is the only passage of Scripture that God provides an “age based” exception to His judgments. No where does Scripture indicate such an "age based" exemption exists elsewhere or to be continued in the NT era. The OT is replete of examples where children fall under God's judgment which are not "age based."

Examples would be:
  • The tenth plague. Because of the sin of one man, all first born of the Egyptians were killed. No age based exemption.
  • Sodom and Gomorrah. Because ten righteous people could not be found the cities were destroyed along with all the cities in the valley. All died under God's judgment. No age based exemption.
  • Assyrian & Babylonian captivity. Children were punished for the sin of the elders or Israel in general. No age based exemption.
  • Death of David’s son. Because David committed murder by proxy, his son seven day old life was taken from him. No age based exemption.
  • The extreme example of the Flood. All unborn, infants, toddlers, and adolescents are killed by the flood and fall under eternal condemnation, based upon the sins of their parents, and grandparents participated in. Inherit natural depravity on all humans is evident in the Flood. Infants who are incapable of actual sin, here destroyed as well as adults. The cause of death for infants is original sin, because they are not capable of actual sin. The flood was just because all sin whether original in Adam or actual is a CAPITAL OFFENSE. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).
  • In the Flood, either infants and children were truly guilty or God was punishing the innocent. If they were not guilty of breaking a known commandment, then they must somehow be guilty because of their relationship to Adam. They must share in his guilt. They must have "sinned in Adam." That is the truth of imputation.

THE JUSTICE OF GOD. If children and infants are seen as innocent of sin, hence infantile purity and do receive God’s judgment, would this make God unjust. As Mark Beach has said,

“Baptists, while protecting the Justice of God from inherited guilt, maintain these same guiltless infants can and do suffer sin’s environmental consequences or the polluting effects of sin.
“Infants and young children then are specifically created to suffer the curse of death for no sin of their own—a curse that includes disease, illness, war, genocides, murder, abortions, neglect, injury, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, forced famines, infanticide, starvation, child sacrifice, etc.
“This is a self- contradictory stance. For, if infants are without personal sin and guilt, then they have not merited the suffering they are made to endure. This is nothing other than unjust suffering.”



God is not unjust.
 

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,055
7,502
North Carolina
✟342,995.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Text: Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.
To answer the question of the thread title, the answer is "no."

All are born guilty of the sin of Adam and condemned (Ro 5:18), by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Ehp 2:3).
Salvation from that condemnation is only by faith in and trust on the person and atoning sacrifice (blood, Ro 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and salvation from God's condemnation.
Contextually, this verse refers Numbers 13-14 where Israelite spies were sent into the land of Caanan, lied about what they saw and convinced Israel leaders and elders to murmur against Moses. For the sin of grumbling, judged the whole of Israel, forcing them to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, and only those under the age of twenty would be able of enter the promised land.

For many Credobaptists and those to deny original sin, who hold to the Age of Accountability this verse teaches children below the age of accountability were exempt from God’s judgement due to their age—— “our little ones” who have “no knowledge of good and evil.” They reason those that have “no knowledge of good and evil” at minimum are morally neutral or as extreme as being sinless or guiltless.

My contention is "knowledge of good and evil" is a Hebraism which yields a closer linguistic fit meaning "maturity and immaturity" rather than sinlessness or guiltlessness. See my previous post OP 12/4 on Is. 7:14.

The question is raised: Were the “little ones” who had “no knowledge of good and evil” exempt from God’s judgment of Israel. ABSOLUTELY NOT. The judgment placed upon the “little ones” was they were forced to wander for 40 years in the desert. The exemption of death is seen as a pardon and an act of pure grace by God allowing the promises to Abraham to continue.

This is the only passage of Scripture that God provides an “age based” exception to His judgments. No where does Scripture indicate such an "age based" exemption exists elsewhere or to be continued in the NT era. The OT is replete of examples where children fall under God's judgment which are not "age based."

Examples would be:
  • The tenth plague. Because of the sin of one man, all first born of the Egyptians were killed. No age based exemption.
  • Sodom and Gomorrah. Because ten righteous people could not be found the cities were destroyed along with all the cities in the valley. All died under God's judgment. No age based exemption.
  • Assyrian & Babylonian captivity. Children were punished for the sin of the elders or Israel in general. No age based exemption.
  • Death of David’s son. Because David committed murder by proxy, his son seven day old life was taken from him. No age based exemption.
  • The extreme example of the Flood. All unborn, infants, toddlers, and adolescents are killed by the flood and fall under eternal condemnation, based upon the sins of their parents, and grandparents participated in. Inherit natural depravity on all humans is evident in the Flood. Infants who are incapable of actual sin, here destroyed as well as adults. The cause of death for infants is original sin, because they are not capable of actual sin. The flood was just because all sin whether original in Adam or actual is a CAPITAL OFFENSE. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).
  • In the Flood, either infants and children were truly guilty or God was punishing the innocent. If they were not guilty of breaking a known commandment, then they must somehow be guilty because of their relationship to Adam. They must share in his guilt. They must have "sinned in Adam." That is the truth of imputation.

THE JUSTICE OF GOD. If children and infants are seen as innocent of sin, hence infantile purity and do receive God’s judgment, would this make God unjust. As Mark Beach has said,

“Baptists, while protecting the Justice of God from inherited guilt, maintain these same guiltless infants can and do suffer sin’s environmental consequences or the polluting effects of sin.
“Infants and young children then are specifically created to suffer the curse of death for no sin of their own—a curse that includes disease, illness, war, genocides, murder, abortions, neglect, injury, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, forced famines, infanticide, starvation, child sacrifice, etc.
“This is a self- contradictory stance. For, if infants are without personal sin and guilt, then they have not merited the suffering they are made to endure. This is nothing other than unjust suffering.”



God is not unjust.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,469
8,141
50
The Wild West
✟753,232.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The Text: Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.

Contextually, this verse refers Numbers 13-14 where Israelite spies were sent into the land of Caanan, lied about what they saw and convinced Israel leaders and elders to murmur against Moses. For the sin of grumbling, judged the whole of Israel, forcing them to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, and only those under the age of twenty would be able of enter the promised land.

For many Credobaptists and those to deny original sin, who hold to the Age of Accountability this verse teaches children below the age of accountability were exempt from God’s judgement due to their age—— “our little ones” who have “no knowledge of good and evil.” They reason those that have “no knowledge of good and evil” at minimum are morally neutral or as extreme as being sinless or guiltless.

My contention is "knowledge of good and evil" is a Hebraism which yields a closer linguistic fit meaning "maturity and immaturity" rather than sinlessness or guiltlessness. See my previous post OP 12/4 on Is. 7:14.

The question is raised: Were the “little ones” who had “no knowledge of good and evil” exempt from God’s judgment of Israel. ABSOLUTELY NOT. The judgment placed upon the “little ones” was they were forced to wander for 40 years in the desert. The exemption of death is seen as a pardon and an act of pure grace by God allowing the promises to Abraham to continue.

This is the only passage of Scripture that God provides an “age based” exception to His judgments. No where does Scripture indicate such an "age based" exemption exists elsewhere or to be continued in the NT era. The OT is replete of examples where children fall under God's judgment which are not "age based."

Examples would be:
  • The tenth plague. Because of the sin of one man, all first born of the Egyptians were killed. No age based exemption.
  • Sodom and Gomorrah. Because ten righteous people could not be found the cities were destroyed along with all the cities in the valley. All died under God's judgment. No age based exemption.
  • Assyrian & Babylonian captivity. Children were punished for the sin of the elders or Israel in general. No age based exemption.
  • Death of David’s son. Because David committed murder by proxy, his son seven day old life was taken from him. No age based exemption.
  • The extreme example of the Flood. All unborn, infants, toddlers, and adolescents are killed by the flood and fall under eternal condemnation, based upon the sins of their parents, and grandparents participated in. Inherit natural depravity on all humans is evident in the Flood. Infants who are incapable of actual sin, here destroyed as well as adults. The cause of death for infants is original sin, because they are not capable of actual sin. The flood was just because all sin whether original in Adam or actual is a CAPITAL OFFENSE. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).
  • In the Flood, either infants and children were truly guilty or God was punishing the innocent. If they were not guilty of breaking a known commandment, then they must somehow be guilty because of their relationship to Adam. They must share in his guilt. They must have "sinned in Adam." That is the truth of imputation.

THE JUSTICE OF GOD. If children and infants are seen as innocent of sin, hence infantile purity and do receive God’s judgment, would this make God unjust. As Mark Beach has said,

“Baptists, while protecting the Justice of God from inherited guilt, maintain these same guiltless infants can and do suffer sin’s environmental consequences or the polluting effects of sin.
“Infants and young children then are specifically created to suffer the curse of death for no sin of their own—a curse that includes disease, illness, war, genocides, murder, abortions, neglect, injury, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, forced famines, infanticide, starvation, child sacrifice, etc.
“This is a self- contradictory stance. For, if infants are without personal sin and guilt, then they have not merited the suffering they are made to endure. This is nothing other than unjust suffering.”



God is not unjust.
I am going to link to this excellent post from another thread where this issue came up, where it is a bit off-topic.