Original Sin, and its Essence

[Clete]

So you say, but Adam's sin brought death to all of his descendants. If you prefer to lump that in with "long term ramifications", that's fine, but Adam sinned (the father ate sour grapes) and his children suffered the consequences (their teeth were set on edge).

Derf,

You will recant this blasphemy or find yourself on my ignore list.

No response will be taken as a refusal to recant. You have 24 hours from right now. 7:36am 5/14/25

Ezekiel 18:1 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:​

​

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,​

And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?​

​

3 "As I live," says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel."​

 

[Right Divider]

Derf,

You will recant this blasphemy or find yourself on my ignore list.

No response will be taken as a refusal to recant. You have 24 hours from right now. 7:36am 5/14/25

Ezekiel 18:1 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:​

​

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,​

And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?​

​

3 "As I live," says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel."​

I simply cannot understand why people keep wanting to claim that God is unjust.

For God to hold a descendant accountable for an ancestors sin would clearly be unjust... but still they make this claim.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So you say, but Adam's sin brought death to all of his descendants. If you prefer to lump that in with "long term ramifications", that's fine, but Adam sinned (the father ate sour grapes) and his children suffered the consequences (their teeth were set on edge).

Because you don't seem to understand (or perhaps refuse to), the "children's teeth set on edge" was referring to them being PUNISHED for the sin of their fathers, not dealing with the consequences of their fathers' sin. There's a HUGE difference between the two.

What you just said is literally what God was telling Israel NOT to say because it impugnes His very character!

That's LITERALLY WHAT THE ENTIRE CHAPTER IS ABOUT!

Just read it, Derf!

The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,And the children’s teeth are set on edge’? “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel. “Behold, all souls are Mine;The soul of the fatherAs well as the soul of the son is Mine;The soul who sins shall die. But if a man is justAnd does what is lawful and right; If he has not eaten on the mountains,Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife,Nor approached a woman during her impurity; If he has not oppressed anyone,But has restored to the debtor his pledge;Has robbed no one by violence,But has given his bread to the hungryAnd covered the naked with clothing; If he has not exacted usuryNor taken any increase,But has withdrawn his hand from iniquityAnd executed true judgment between man and man; If he has walked in My statutesAnd kept My judgments faithfully—He is just;He shall surely live!”Says the Lord God. “If he begets a son who is a robberOr a shedder of blood,Who does any of these things And does none of those duties,But has eaten on the mountainsOr defiled his neighbor’s wife; If he has oppressed the poor and needy,Robbed by violence,Not restored the pledge,Lifted his eyes to the idols,Or committed abomination; If he has exacted usuryOr taken increase—Shall he then live?He shall not live!If he has done any of these abominations,He shall surely die;His blood shall be upon him. “If, however, he begets a sonWho sees all the sins which his father has done,And considers but does not do likewise; Who has not eaten on the mountains,Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife; Has not oppressed anyone,Nor withheld a pledge,Nor robbed by violence,But has given his bread to the hungryAnd covered the naked with clothing; Who has withdrawn his hand from the poorAnd not received usury or increase,But has executed My judgmentsAnd walked in My statutes—He shall not die for the iniquity of his father;He shall surely live! “As for his father,Because he cruelly oppressed,Robbed his brother by violence,And did what is not good among his people,Behold, he shall die for his iniquity. “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live? “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die. “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair? “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”

Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 18 - New King James Version

A False Proverb Refuted - The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge’? “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Clete]

I simply cannot understand why people keep wanting to claim that God is unjust.

For God to hold a descendant accountable for an ancestors sin would clearly be unjust... but still they make this claim.

And for what possible benefit? Where is the pay off for believing such an obviously false thing in DIRECT contradiction to WHOLE CHAPTERS of the bible and God's own explicit verbatim command?!

It is lunatic stupidity on a level I cannot deal with and will not tolerate.

 

[7djengo7]

So you say, but Adam's sin brought death to all of his descendants. If you prefer to lump that in with "long term ramifications", that's fine, but Adam sinned (the father ate sour grapes) and his children suffered the consequences (their teeth were set on edge).

Are you saying God paid the wages of Adam's sin to Adam's descendants? Do Adam's descendants get paid the wages of Adam's sin, plus the wages of their own sin?

 

[Clete]

So far as I am concerned, unless and until @Derf repents, he no longer exists.

 

[Derf]

Since @Clete has me in his doghouse for daring to question his theology, this is more just to whoever is interested.

@Derf,

Your response avoids the heart of the issue. Perhaps not intentionally, but you’re not dealing with the actual argument. I’m distinguishing physical death from spiritual death, and showing that Scripture does too.

I don't think you've made the case that scripture deals with something called spiritual death. I'm ok with the idea, if it means "death that is assured, but not accomplished yet", since that is what seems to be talked about when the bible speaks of someone who is dead while still physically alive (like Abimelech).

You’re treating that as if it’s just an interpretive quirk or some sort of “technical” nuance, but it's not that at all. On the contrary, it is not only the plain and intuitive reading of the text, but it’s completely essential. Without that distinction, even your own interpretations become inconsistent and incoherent.

Take Genesis 2:17; God says Adam will die “in the day” he eats. Not only does he not physically die that day, but he lives for 930 YEARS! Redefining “day” to mean “nearly a millennium” is not a serious treatment of the text, Derf. What does happen that very day is that Adam is cast out from God’s presence. That’s spiritual death. If you ignore that distinction, you’re left making the verse say something that it clearly doesn’t.

Ezekiel 18 is another example. You want to reduce it to warnings about dying young, but the chapter is plainly moral and spiritual. It’s not about life expectancy, it’s about each soul’s standing before God. It says “the soul who sins shall die.” It also says that the wicked man who repents will live. That’s not about gaining a few more years on Earth. It’s about spiritual (i.e. eternal) life or death before God. The entire chapter dismantles the idea of inherited guilt. Each person is judged for their own sin or righteousness. That fits perfectly with the view I’ve laid out, and not at all with the idea of spiritual death being something we’re born into.

As for Ephesians 2:1: Saying “you were dead in sin” means “you were dying” doesn’t work at all. Paul says we were dead - not dying - not doomed, but already spiritually dead, and then made alive in Christ. It’s a before and after contrast: dead in sin, alive in Him. That couldn't be any clearer and it fundamentally requires the spiritual/physical distinction you keep refusing to allow.

This is why I keep returning to the same point: once you let go of the idea that death always means physical death, everything falls into place - from Genesis 3, to the cross, to the new birth. If you cling to the idea that death is only physical, then you must either accept inherited guilt (as in original sin) or come up with increasingly strained explanations to avoid its consequences. If, on the other hand, you accept that Scripture distinguishes spiritual death from physical death, then the entire biblical message, from Adam’s fall to Christ’s resurrection, to our living with Him forever more, becomes both coherent and morally sound.

And no, none of us will ever cease to exist!

Yet Adam was told he would return to dust. Not his body, but him. Here it is from Gen 3:
[Gen 3:19 NKJV] In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you [are], And to dust you shall return."
Nowhere does that verse distinguish between Adam's body and his soul, it is just "YOU". Adam (not Adam's body) was taken out of the ground, and he would return to it. We see that in a couple ways. 1. that dead bodies are buried, and 2. that dead bodies decay. But God didn't distinguish between body and something else. I know you prefer literal interpretation wherever it applies, but you seem to have sidestepped that here. It's not "plain" or "intuitive" to say that when God said Adam would die, then explained that it meant he would "return to dust", it means not that Adam would return to dust, but that God would send him out of the garden. Besides, if spiritual death is what God meant, and spiritual death could be fixed by eating of the tree of life, then why did Christ have to die at all? The problem was that the tree of life would give eternal life, but it wouldn't fix the sin problem, so we would live forever in sin.

This point is foundational to the whole discussion.

Yes

When death means separation and not annihilation, everything falls into place; from the nature of the Fall,

No

to the meaning of salvation,

No

to the very character of God Himself.

???

You'd be hard pressed to discover a more pervasively important doctrine. The coherence of the the entire bible and the whole of Christianity hinges on it.

I don't think it does. I haven't found any important Christian doctrines that rely on the idea of "death means separation".

In short, I’m pointing to clear, contextual distinctions and you’re just sidestepping them and replacing them with vague or metaphorical readings that avoid the force of the argument I've presented.

Vague? Metaphorical? God told Adam that because he ate of the fruit, he would return to dust. how is that vague or metaphorical?

You’re defending a framework that not only appears to be brought to the text a priori, but that requires reinterpreting passages that, if read straightforwardly, openly contradict your theology.

Straightforward? Reinterpreting "to dust YOU shall return" as "you will be alive physically, but you will be separated from God"? Reinterpreting death to mean separation is straightforward? Where does the bible give your definition of death? The closest I've found is in Revelation, where it talks about "second death", which it defines as being thrown in the lake of fire. But that's after the first kind of death has been completely defeated, as evidenced by the...shall I say it...physical resurrection of all people. If the important kind of death (separation from God) had been defeated, then how would it be possible for it to be imposed on all who reject Christ? That's why a second type of death is needed. And why it lasts eternally.

One last thing...because I think it really matters.

I said: “If we fail to distinguish physical from spiritual death, then we cannot understand what Adam lost, what Christ restored, or what salvation actually saves us from.”

You replied: “I agree with this completely.”

How can the be squared with the rest of your response? Everything you’ve argued up to this point depends on collapsing that distinction. You’ve repeatedly treated death in Genesis, Ezekiel, and Ephesians as if it simply means physical death (or sometimes metaphorical death), and resisted the spiritual/physical distinction.

So, what is it exactly that you're agreeing with?

I agree that “If we fail to distinguish physical from spiritual death, then we cannot understand what Adam lost, what Christ restored, or what salvation actually saves us from.”
In other words, if we think God is talking about spiritual death when He's really talking about just death, then we don't realize that what Adam lost was his existence, that Christ restored his existence, and salvation saves us from that loss of existence.

If you truly agree that spiritual death is a real and distinct category

I don't.

and that it’s central to what Adam lost,

It's not

what Christ restores,

It's not

and what salvation saves us from,

It's not.

then I honestly don’t see how your earlier interpretations hold together. Once you allow that distinction,

I don't. But you have to understand that your sentence structure fully allows me to agree with the sentence and disagree with you.

everything changes: Genesis 2-3 makes perfect sense,

It already does without having to, how did you say it, "reinterpreting passages that, if read straightforwardly, openly contradict your theology."

Ezekiel 18 becomes morally coherent, and Ephesians 2:1 is no longer a metaphor, but a literal description of spiritual death and rebirth.

If, on the other hand, you agree with the distinction in theory but not in practice, then I’d suggest the agreement you've voiced is only superficial because the very passages you’ve reinterpreted

Or you have reinterpreted...

are the ones that require that distinction in order to make any consistent theological sense.

It can't be wrong to reinterpret what you've interpreted in the first place. If death means returning to dust, but you interpret it to mean separation, then some reinterpretation is necessary.

 

[JudgeRightly]

daring to question his theology

Impugning the character of God is hardly "questioning someone's theology," Derf.

 

[Derf]

Impugning the character of God is hardly "questioning someone's theology," Derf.

Who is doing that? I stated what was written in the scripture.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Who is doing that? I stated what was written in the scripture.

You are!

The fact that you're not even aware of it is a problem!

Because you don't seem to understand (or perhaps refuse to), the "children's teeth set on edge" was referring to them being PUNISHED for the sin of their fathers, not dealing with the consequences of their fathers' sin. There's a HUGE difference between the two.

What you just said is literally what God was telling Israel NOT to say because it impugnes His very character!

That's LITERALLY WHAT THE ENTIRE CHAPTER IS ABOUT!

Just read it, Derf!

The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,And the children’s teeth are set on edge’? “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel. “Behold, all souls are Mine;The soul of the fatherAs well as the soul of the son is Mine;The soul who sins shall die. But if a man is justAnd does what is lawful and right; If he has not eaten on the mountains,Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife,Nor approached a woman during her impurity; If he has not oppressed anyone,But has restored to the debtor his pledge;Has robbed no one by violence,But has given his bread to the hungryAnd covered the naked with clothing; If he has not exacted usuryNor taken any increase,But has withdrawn his hand from iniquityAnd executed true judgment between man and man; If he has walked in My statutesAnd kept My judgments faithfully—He is just;He shall surely live!”Says the Lord God. “If he begets a son who is a robberOr a shedder of blood,Who does any of these things And does none of those duties,But has eaten on the mountainsOr defiled his neighbor’s wife; If he has oppressed the poor and needy,Robbed by violence,Not restored the pledge,Lifted his eyes to the idols,Or committed abomination; If he has exacted usuryOr taken increase—Shall he then live?He shall not live!If he has done any of these abominations,He shall surely die;His blood shall be upon him. “If, however, he begets a sonWho sees all the sins which his father has done,And considers but does not do likewise; Who has not eaten on the mountains,Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife; Has not oppressed anyone,Nor withheld a pledge,Nor robbed by violence,But has given his bread to the hungryAnd covered the naked with clothing; Who has withdrawn his hand from the poorAnd not received usury or increase,But has executed My judgmentsAnd walked in My statutes—He shall not die for the iniquity of his father;He shall surely live! “As for his father,Because he cruelly oppressed,Robbed his brother by violence,And did what is not good among his people,Behold, he shall die for his iniquity. “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live? “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die. “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair? “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”

Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 18 - New King James Version

A False Proverb Refuted - The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge’? “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Derf]

You are!

The fact that you're not even aware of it is a problem!

Yet @Clete himself acknowledged that physical death is a result of Adam's sin. And all human beings, with the exception of Jesus, are either physically dead or will die, even if they never commit a sin (like those who die in the womb). "It is appointed unto man once to die...". You both can ignore that fact, but it is an example of God, in whose hands all of our lives rest, punishing the children for the father's sin. So somehow you have to reconcile Eze 18 with Heb 9:11, taking into account
Romans 9:11a KJV — (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil...)

The bible expressly says that death came as a result of Adam's sin, that all die, that children in the womb haven't done any good or evil. Why is this controversial? Why does this amount to blasphemy in Clete's eyes? It's biblical fact, reading it without interpretation, right?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yet @Clete himself acknowledged that physical death is a result of Adam's sin.

Result does not necessarily mean it's a punishment.

And all human beings, with the exception of Jesus, are either physically dead or will die,

Enoch and Elijah are not dead.

even if they never commit a sin (like those who die in the womb). "It is appointed unto man once to die...".

So you think that because it uses the word "appointed," therefore it means that all death is some form of punishment?

You both can ignore that fact, but it is an example of God, in whose hands all of our lives rest, punishing the children for the father's sin.

And that's blasphemy!

God does not punish children for their father's sin.

HE LITERALLY SAYS THAT!

Are you going to call God a liar?!

SERIOUSLY!

GO.
READ.
THE.
CHAPTER.
AGAIN.

God EXPLICITLY SAYS doing so is UNJUST!

So somehow you have to reconcile Eze 18 with Heb 9:11, taking into account
Romans 9:11a KJV — (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil...)

What does Hebrews 9:11 have to do with this?

God is just. He does not punish fathers for their childrens' sin, nor children for their fathers' sin. Ezekiel 18 says this.

When YOU, Derf, say God DOES do those things, YOU MAKE GOD TO BE UNJUST!

And Romans 9:11 is about God choosing people to serve Him, not about salvation.

And again:

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 9:14 - New King James Version

Israel’s Rejection and God’s Justice - What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!

www.biblegateway.com

Yet you want to say "God punishes children for their father's sin."

Shame on you!

The bible expressly says that death came as a result of Adam's sin, that all die, that children in the womb haven't done any good or evil. Why is this controversial? Why does this amount to blasphemy in Clete's eyes? It's biblical fact, reading it without interpretation, right?

The blasphemy comes in when you attribute injustice to God, by saying God punishes the children for the sin of their fathers.

The moment you cross that line, that's when it becomes blasphemy. Equating natural consequences with intentional punishment is crossing the line.

 

[7djengo7]

Result does not necessarily mean it's a punishment.

Very important point, I believe!

In Romans 9:11, Paul writes:

For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil...

Unless some subtle, Biblical distinction of which I am not aware can be made between doing evil and sinning, it would seem to me that to do evil is to sin. And, I take it that Paul didn't merely mean that neither Jacob nor Esau had done any evil in utero, but rather that he was appealing to a universal principle that no human does any evil -- that is, sins -- while in the womb. And, if (as I feel compelled to think) it's true that no baby sins in the womb, then it cannot be that the death of the millions of babies who have been murdered in the womb is a punishment of those babies.

Also, in any event of murder, would it not, on the very face of it at least, seem asinine and downright evil to claim that the death of the murder victim is a punishment of the murder victim for his/her sin?​

 

[7djengo7]

The blasphemy comes in when you attribute injustice to God, by saying God punishes the children for the sin of their fathers.

And, similar to what I wrote in my previous post, how God-blaspheming it would be to say that the death of a baby who is murdered by his/her father is a punishment of that baby for his/her father's sin!

 

[7djengo7]

About two decades ago I was for a (thankfully) brief time -- maybe a couple of years -- a staunch Calvinist. The thing that really seemed to have a powerful effect on my mind in those days, making me feel compelled to believe the L of TULIP, was the Calvinists' standard complaint that to say Jesus died for all men's sins, rather than just for some men's (the elect's) sins only is to have sinners being punished for sins for which Jesus had already been punished on the cross. That seemed to have a lot of force, to my mind.

And yet, blessedly, that most revered, hard-shell, arch-Calvinist, himself -- John Owen -- inadvertently showed me, in a little corner of his massive literary output -- the abject hypocrisy inherent in that standard Calvinist schtick, immediately freeing me from my thitherto spiritual bondage to TULIP theology:
Here, we have a Calvinist (who has already long since suffered "death temporal" and been buried at Bunhill) telling us that his own biting-the-dust (he, being one of Calvinism's "eternally elect"!) was him suffering PUNISHMENT for at least some of his sin! Yet, how can that be, Dr. TULIP? How can it be that you, yourself, were punished by God for any of your own sin if Christ had already been punished by God for all your sin at Calvary? According to Owen, in that excerpt, even his occasionally having a cold, or indigestion, or perhaps even just a bad-hair day, was himself suffering punishment for sin for which Christ had already suffered punishment on the cross, thus accusing God of injustice!

 

[Derf]

Result does not necessarily mean it's a punishment.

True. Children's teeth set on edge might be just a result. But Ez 18 associates it with death, and Gen 2 and 3 indicate that death was a punishment. If death is not a punishment, this conversation will change dramatically.

Enoch and Elijah are not dead.

True. They are definitely exceptions. That's why some say they are the two witnesses that will die in the future.

So you think that because it uses the word "appointed," therefore it means that all death is some form of punishment?

It was for Adam. It appears to be for us, since it is the wages of sin. But Adam's sin is what brought death into the world, including for infants.

And that's blasphemy!

God does not punish children for their father's sin.

HE LITERALLY SAYS THAT!

What it literally says is: "You shall no longer use this proverb." God goes on to explain that a man is to be held accountable for his own sins.

Are you going to call God a liar?!

No. Where did you get that from? Are you calling God a liar when He says:
Numbers 14:18 KJV — The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
He literally says He visits the iniquity of fathers on children. Literally.

SERIOUSLY!

GO.
READ.
THE.
CHAPTER.
AGAIN.

I have. Have you reread the chapters I've pointed to?

God EXPLICITLY SAYS doing so is UNJUST!

In Ez 18? Where?

What does Hebrews 9:11 have to do with this?

God is just. He does not punish fathers for their childrens' sin, nor children for their fathers' sin. Ezekiel 18 says this.

What does any part of God's word have to do with any other part of God's word?

When YOU, Derf, say God DOES do those things, YOU MAKE GOD TO BE UNJUST!

You make God to be inconsistent. Which is particularly bad when discussing justice. He can do things to us that we aren't allowed to do to others. But the point is that Ez 18 has to be understood within the full context of God's revealed word, including those that may appear to conflict.

And Romans 9:11 is about God choosing people to serve Him, not about salvation.

And you're saying that there is no truth that can be arrived at that doesn't have to do with choosing people for service? Do you actually fully read my posts, or only read the dog-whistle part?

And again:

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 9:14 - New King James Version

Israel’s Rejection and God’s Justice - What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!

www.biblegateway.com

Yeah, but your standard is that the passage only has to do with choosing people to serve Him. So it must not be about life and death.

Yet you want to say "God punishes children for their father's sin."

No, I don't want to say that at all. I'm saying that death came on all men as a result of Adam's sin, including innocent children. I'm stating it as a fact presented to us in the bible.

Shame on you!

For reading the bible, not just stopping at Ez 18?

The blasphemy comes in when you attribute injustice to God, by saying God punishes the children for the sin of their fathers.

I'm saying that God told Adam He would die if he ate the fruit. Paul said it applied to all people. Observation tells me that applies to innocent children sometimes.

The moment you cross that line, that's when it becomes blasphemy. Equating natural consequences with intentional punishment is crossing the line.

I'm not sure where the dividing line is, but you can't find it by only looking at Ez 18. I'm just fine with sin having natural consequences, including death. But it death is also punishment brought on the whole human race by Adam's sin. And it is why Christ had to die, physically.

 

[ttruscott]

And, I take it that Paul didn't merely mean that neither Jacob nor Esau had done any evil in utero, but rather that he was appealing to a universal principle that no human does any evil -- that is, sins -- while in the womb. And, if (as I feel compelled to think) it's true that no baby sins in the womb,

Really?? It is written that they were trying to crush each other to pieces....not jostle or wrestle. Sounds sinful to me...

And I also must ask, what did YHWH tell Rebecca was the reason for their sinful assault upon each other? Why, HE told her it was so they could be the first born and rule the roost!!!

So I ask, IF they were just newly created tabula rasa,
- how did they know about the law of PRIMOGENITURE?
- And: how did they know that they were being born into a culture that followed the rule of primogeniture??

Doesn't sound like they were so new and empty headed does it?

 

[7djengo7]

Really?? It is written that they were trying to crush each other to pieces....not jostle or wrestle. Sounds sinful to me...

Does your Bible not include Romans 9:11?

For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil...

Had Jacob and Esau done any evil in the womb, before they were born? Yes or No?

 

[ttruscott]

Does your Bible not include Romans 9:11?

For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil...

Had Jacob and Esau done any evil in the womb, before they were born? Yes or No?

Rom 9:11 does not say that they did no evil before they were born - it says that before they were born or ever did any evil in this life after their birth, one was already chosen / elected to lead and one to follow because HE loved the one and the other HE hated...to prove election was not by works but by HIS will.

11Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, in order that God’s plan of election might stand, 12not by works but by Him who calls, she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”d 13So it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Many have rigorously rejected the notion that GOD would hate an innocent before he sinned. Since they were being evil in the womb the time before they had done anything good or bad must have been before their conception when we were all spirits made in the image of GOD being separated by our free will faith decisions into the elect whom HE loved or the non-elect whom HE hated.

Election was NOT unconditional or reprobation was also non-conditional which denigrates the loving kindness of GOD. The condition for election was having faith in YHWH's proclamation to be our creator GOD and the only saviour from sin, Col 1:23, while the condition for reprobation was to rebuke YHWH by faith, not proof, as a liar and therefore a false god, the unforgivable sin, the Satanic fall before the foundation of the world.

 

[ttruscott]

Does your Bible not include Romans 9:11?

Romans 9:11 does not even hint at answers to the questions:

IF they were just newly created tabula rasa,
- how did they know about the law of PRIMOGENITURE?

and:
- how did they know that they were being born into a culture that followed the rule of primogeniture??