|
|
 |
|
Reply
| | From:  KenHamrick (Original Message) | Sent: 3/26/2008 6:29 PM |
Before I address Tony Warren's argument, there are some clarifications to be made. - Though my position is similar in ways to those addressed by T. Warren, there are significant differences. Consequently, the issue between his position and mine does not always match what he anticipated and argued against.
- The term, "Age of Accountability," is the popular name for what is more precisely labeled, "Knowledgeable Accountability." The less-precise label leads to straw-men regarding particular ages, etc. The issue is not one of age, but one of knowledge.
- The real age at issue is the point of conception. Pointing to the supposedly sinful actions of a six-year-old avoids the real issue, and says nothing regarding the abilities, knowledge, accountability, or guilt of a zygote.
- The issue is not works-based salvation, but works-based condemnation. Condemnation is always earned, and never like grace or a gift.
- There is a difference between having a positive righteousness and merely lacking any sinful deeds for which to be condemned.
- The issue is not whether or not a child is conceived with a morally corrupted nature; but whether or not the child is culpable and accountable for that nature.
- The issue is not whether or not man can hold God to man's sense of justice; but whether or not men can interpret the Bible in such a way as to teach that God directly violates justice, which all men (being made in God's image) have an innate understanding of. Some men "call evil good and good evil," teaching that God would do what is unjust and calling it just, elevating themselves to the level of God, as if men had no more right in this matter to question them than to question God. In this, they beg the question.
- I fully agree that we are conceived in a state of spiritual death, from which only Christ can resurrect us. We are conceived with a sinful nature ("shaped in iniquity"), which only Christ can remedy through rebirth. Not even a zygote comes to the Father except through Christ. This is not to say that Christ excludes these little ones, but rather, it expresses the means whereby all of them are saved. It is admittedly a mystery how exactly God regenerates and redeems the unborn. But it is just as difficult to disprove as to prove. The main force of my argument has been addressed to the main force of the Original Sin advocates' argument, that of the Scriptural basis for condemnation from the moment of conception. Traditionally, the idea of an age of accountability has been regarded as based solely on emotion and "common sense," but held in contradiction to the "insurmountable" scriptural evidence for inherited condemnation. While I have not added anything as to exactly how God redeems these little ones, my goal has been to show the error of the claim that Scripture is silent and devoid of any support for their salvation, and defeat the false claim that Scripture teaches their condemnation.
What follows is my critique of the article, Is The Age of Accountability Biblical?, by Tony Warren, and is found at this link: http://members.aol.com/twarren13/account.html The age of accountability is one of many misleading terms which are often used in Christian circles. Most people would agree that basically it means, 'a person who is young enough that he is not yet able to understand fully the results of his actions' (It being theorized by some that these children are not held accountable for the things which they do which are against God's law). For example, a six year old child that might hit his sister over the head with a toy block in anger. 'Theoretically,' this child is not held accountable by God because he had not yet reached an age where he is able to fully understand what he was doing. The problem with this theory is that it is based upon the logical processes of fallen human thought, and is a perverse twisting of God's law for the sake of what seems right in our own eyes. There is nothing in God's law that says man must fully understand sin, before it is actually sin. On the contrary, this doctrine is both un-biblical and self serving, for it presupposes unrighteously that sin must first be recognized as sin before it is actually accountable. Nothing in scripture supports such a thesis. It is not about the actions of a six-year-old, but the state of a child at conception. Either the child is condemned from conception onward, or he arrives at a point of further development where he is then condemned (which is my position, not Warren's). Sadly, Warren wastes a lot of time and space in this article presuming and preaching that those of the opposing view are using fallen, perverse, humanistic, rebellious, Bible-rejecting thinking--which begs the question of the superiority of his argument. Therefore, it amounts to nothing more than useless bluster, and all such further nonsense will be (mostly) skipped. If sin does not need to be understood as sin, then why did God explain by commandment that Adam was not to eat of the tree? Why not keep it a secret, and punish him after the fact? Nothing in Scripture would support such a thesis. Romans 5 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Romans 4 15for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. Romans 3 19Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. Now, just what law do you think a zygote can understand, seeing how it does not yet have a single brain cell? Clearly, the zygote does not yet have any law; and where there is no law, "sin is not imputed" and "there also is no violation." The law speaks to men, giving them "the knowledge of sin," "so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God." These passages plainly show that it is the knowledge of sin that makes a man accountable to God. Proverbs 20:11 - "Even a Child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right."
This is just one of the scriptures that knocks down any concept of children's works being pure because of an age of accountability. The fact that this verse says implicitly that a Child's doing can be impure, is a testimony in itself against the doctrine of Children being sinless. They can't be known by their doings if all children's works are pure. They obviously are not all pure in God's eyes.
The issue here is our standing at conception. What act can a child do when he has not even a brain? Obviously, the development of a child eventually enables accountability. This verse speaks of children (the word means, a boy, lad, servant, youth, retainer--BDB) who are at least old enough to have acts for which to be judged. No one judges an infant's acts to see whether they are pure and upright, and certainly no one judges a zygote in such a way. Also, the issue is not the "purity" of a child's works, but the accountability. This verse does not in any way knock down anything in my position, and is a misapplication of Scripture. The emotional argument (the one used by most people) in support of the age of accountability is that, "it just simply has to be true in order to keep God fair." In many cases they don't even realize that they are telling God what has to be fair and what cannot be fair. That's like the pot telling the potter what is right and wrong. The idea that small children cannot be held accountable for sinning because they are not mature enough to understanding what they do is secular reasoning. And the assumption is indeed the problem. When man does not spiritually acknowledge God's Word as authority, then they are leaning unto their own understanding rather than following and trusting God. Do we go our own way, or let God direct our steps? Ah, but in this case, the Potter has seen fit to make the pots in His own likeness, with an innate sense of justice that comes from His own sense of justice. Begging the question in his usual style, Warren seems to be unable to tell the difference between someone questioning his dubious doctrine on the basis that it attributes unjust judgment to God and someone questioning God's judgment--as if Warren's understanding of this matter carried the authority of God. It is not that children cannot be held accountable for sinning, as Warren puts it; rather, it is that children are not considered by God to have sinned until they do so with an accountable degree of understanding. Warren's position is that of the Reformed, which teaches that the child is condemned from the moment of conception--not for any personal sin (since they do not have any personal sin yet), but for the sin of Adam. So then, "the idea" is that a child at conception cannot be held accountable for the sin of someone else (which happened 6000 years ago). If that is an assumption, I see no problem. What does the Scripture say?These five verses have explicit statements. I do not need to claim that they say anything. What they say is direct, self-evident, and undeniable: Ps. 62:12 ...and that to you, O Lord, belongs steadfast love. For you will render to a man according to his work. Prov. 24:12 If you say, "Behold, we did not know this,"does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work? Mat. 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Rom. 2:6 He will render to each one according to his works... Rev. 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Counting the two in the passage in Revelation, that is SIX explicit statements. This is not about what I claim that they say. All may read what they say: God will "render to," "repay," and "judge" a man: "according to his work," "according to his work," "according to what he has done," "according to his works," "according to what they had done," and "according to what they had done." Nowhere in the context of any of these six explicit statements can any shred of textual evidence be found to support the idea that God will judge any man for the deed of Adam in addition to his own deeds, or that He will judge a man according to his relationship to Adam. The problem is that the "baby-burning" crowd will not accept these six direct, explicit statements of Scripture. When man does not spiritually acknowledge God's Word as authority, then they are leaning unto their own understanding rather than following and trusting God. Do we go our own way, or let God direct our steps? God says that Children are neither pure, nor righteous, nor good, nor unaccountable. The problem is not that this is not clear in scripture, the problem is man's natural tendency not to receive it. Except God purge that sin from us, we remain unsaved and carry it until death. Likewise, if God purge it from us, we shall never see death. Here, Warren appears to want to substitute his opinion for actual Scripture. If it so clear, as he says, then he ought to be able to show it to be so, from Scripture.
Psalms 51:5-7 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
- Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
- Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow."
We can clearly see sin in children at every age if we dare look close enough. In some cases we think it's cute, or mischievous, or we call it strong willed or some other label to avoid the truth. But if even finite sinful humans like ourselves can see sin in children, think what a Holy sinless God sees. If we looked at children honestly, we would see that they are simply small adults, sinning in every way just as we do. Any serious (read, honest) attempt to actually determine the age of wilful sin would automatically drive that age downward until it reached birth. At which point, we would then be in agreement with God's Word.
Stick to the real issue. No matter how close one dares to look, one will never see sin in a zygote. A holy sinless God has already told us, in His Word numerous times, that He will judge every man according to his deeds. What deeds can a zygote perform or perpetrate? One cannot honestly attribute willful anything to a one-celled child who has not a single brain cell with which to think. What is traced to conception by David in this psalm is the root and cause of eventual sinful actions. Notice that it does not say, "In condemnation did my mother conceive me..." A child is not conceived WITH sin, but IN sin. They are conceived spiritually dead, or separated from God, and thus they are by nature bent toward sin and self-centeredness. But the question here is, does God condemn them merely for this nature, or does God only condemn them when they have personally committed sin? WHOSE sin were they conceived in? WHOSE iniquity were they shaped in?--None other than the sin of Adam. All are born spiritually dead, self-centered, and bent toward sin, as the natural result of the fact that we all sinned while in the loins of Adam. This is the condition of our birth that the Psalmist speaks of. Though we have been conceived in sin and shaped in iniquity, God does not hold us accountable for this "sin nature." The Psalmist is not speaking of condemnation but only of the source of our sinfulness. We sin because that sinful tendency was "woven" into us from our conception onward, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
To be continued... |
| | T. Warren's Baby-burning Argument Vitiated.doc |
 First
Previous
2-9 of 9
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
Psalms 58:3-5
- "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
- Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
- Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
That is God's Word confirming the age that God sees sin in Children, and when He holds us accountable. And what is God's judgment? He says, "Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth." Isn't it amazing how God doesn't see children as some of the Church today see them. We need to understand that to a righteous God, our sinfulness makes us comparable to poisonous vipers. And whether we are a small viper (snake) or a large viper, we are still vipers. Children are neither born righteous, nor are their sins unaccountable.
This is another misapplication of Scripture, easily refuted. It does not say that the wicked are wicked from the womb, now does it? It only says that they are estranged from the womb, and they go astray from birth. That word, "from," in, "from birth," indicates an ongoing, continuing action, just as in the case of stating that they grow old from birth. Just as they do not grow old immediately AT their birth, they do not speak lies immediately AT their birth. (Going astray from birth is like an arrow that is shot from a bow, but with an incorrect aim. The straying arrow began its journey from the same bow as the one that is correctly aimed, but as time goes on, the deviation becomes apparent, and the arrow eventually misses its mark. The arrow did not go astray AT the bow, but it went astray from the bow onward). David's description is of those who are wicked now, as adults, whom he hates. He does not consider himself to be a part of those whom he calls the wicked, much less does he consider all men to be a part of these wicked. As such, his description is not a progressive one, where he speaks of the birth of the wicked and then describes the future of their life. Rather, his description is a regressive one, looking back upon the lives of real, wicked adult men whom he has in mind, and describes how these men who are wicked have been estranged from the womb and have gone astray from the moment of birth. This description explains why it is that these men are now wicked liars, but it does not portray infants and unborn as wicked or speaking lies. The fact that an infant cannot speak should have been a clue. Look at the next verse, 58:6... Psalm 58:6 6 O God, break the teeth in their mouths; tear out the fangs of the young lions, O LORD! Is it Warren's contention that David is telling God to break the teeth in the mouths of every infant that is ever born?--or of any infant, for that matter? Obviously not (infants don't even have teeth)! Now, why is David telling God to break their teeth? Two reasons are given in verses 4 and 5: "Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;" You see, verses 4-6 all speak of the wicked adults that David has had in mind from the beginning of this psalm. He describes their birth in v. 3, and then goes back to describing them as adults in v.4.
Men are estranged from the womb because all men sinned while in the loins of Adam, and thus are born spiritually dead, or separated from God. However, the Bible nowhere establishes that God will hold an infant accountable for the state of estrangement into which he is born. Rather, the Bible is explicitly clear in telling us that God will judge every man according to his deeds (and not the deeds of anyone else, such as Adam).
1st Corinthians 7:14 - "For the Unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the Husband: else were your children unclean, but now are they Holy."
How can children be unholy except that they are unsaved? I challenge you to ask yourself honestly with no preconceived ideas about the answer, "If God Saved all children, would God's Word say that there were some who were unclean?" Again, the only honest answer is no. ...Children are not automatically Holy, Set Apart, nor Saved. And verses like these proves it to any objective and faithful Bible student...
Children are not conceived as already "holy." They are also not conceived as already guilty of sin. The only way that this can support Warren's position is if he is contending that the children of believers are saved, while the children of unbelievers are not saved. The utter injustice of basing a child's eternal judgment on his parents needs no further opposition. It sinks itself. Besides, if this verse were speaking of salvation, then the unbelieving spouse would also be saved, having been sanctified by the believing spouse. ...If Adam and eve had no knowledge of good and evil (making them unaccountable), then they would not have been accountable for eating from the tree of knowledge when they were commanded not to. So how do we reconcile this seeming contradiction? The truth is found in man being made in the image of God so that he had an inherent knowledge of good and evil, and that is why God held Adam and Eve accountable. Adam did not sin before He ate from the tree, but he most certainly had knowledge of good and evil, but not the experiential knowledge of good and evil which his disobedience gave him. Very much like someone saying that he knew his wife, meaning intellectually. And someone saying he Knew his wife, meaning physical union. In the same way, when Adam ate of the tree, for the first time he then 'knew' good and evil because he physically knew or experienced evil. He knew before that he shouldn't disobey God and eat of this tree when God commanded him not to, but after he ate, He then knew good and evil on another level. One is a knowledge of what is good and evil, and the other is knowing good and evil eperientially. Which is also illustrated in Adam and Eve not knowing their nakedness as it was sinfulness until 'after they disobeyed.' In other words, before he ate of the tree, they were naked and not ashamed to be that way because they had not 'experienced' sin and in this way had no sinful thoughts about their nakedness. After they ate, they gained knowledge of sin through their disobedience and thus saw themselves in their nakedness, and had pride (sin) and self respect that they wanted to cover up. A whole new knowledge which they obtained 'through' disobedience. And God uses this as a spiritual example of how all men stand naked in their sin (children included) and how we all must be clothed with Christ. This was represented by the sacrifice of those skins for Adam and Eve to be clothed with. We too, when we gain knowledge of good and evil, see ourselves as naked before God in our sin, and recognize our need for a covering (rev. 3:18). Interesting speculations. One thing is certain: Adam and Eve knew that eating from the tree would be morally wrong. Regardless of how you explain it, it is also certain that the Bible plainly indicates that gaining "the knowledge of good and evil" was simultaneous with their first sin. Therefore, when God says, in Deut. 1:39 (which we will get to later) that little children do not have that knowledge, it strongly indicates that they have not committed their first sin. As for the correlating shame of nakedness, Warren's argument fails, since children are not ashamed of nakedness from birth, but gain that shame after some development. The early Church father, Tertullian, postulated that the shame of nakedness in a child indicated that the child had arrived at the point of the knowledge of good and evil.
To be continued...
|
|
Reply
| |
Moreover, this teaching that 'we must know the law first, or we have no sin,' leaves us with the obvious question, "if we had never read a Bible to know the law (as some in foreign countries), would that then mean that we could murder someone and not be accountable because there was no knowledge of law?" Immediately we understand this is untenable. Therefore, by mere logic and consistency of scripture we must conclude that written or spoken law given by God, is on top of the law which we are born with and which is within us. That is the reason all (regardless of reading or hearing the law) still stand accountable. We were created in the likeness of God that we have no excuse. We do have the law of God written on our hearts: Rom. 2:14-15 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them... Being made in the image of God, every man has a spirit and is a spiritual being. However, a man is more than a spirit: we are also physical beings. Though the law of God is a spiritual knowledge that we are concieved with, we are not able to make decisions as physical men in a physical world based on that spiritual knowledge until (and unless) our physical brain has developed to the point that it is able to process and comprehend that information and input from the spirit. Also, the spirit within is not able to access sensory input from the body in order to know that a spiritual decision is required until (and unless) the brain and sensory organs are developed enough to process sensory information. The spirit and the body have parallel faculties. A disembodied spirit may move on its own, without physical feet. (Look at the unclean spirits who left the demon-possessed man and went into the swine. They had to see the swine, as well as be able to move to where they were at.) This is why Jesus spoke of men "having ears to hear," or having ears but not hearing (and the same with eyes). Rebellious sinners have physical eyes and ears, but they have purposely "closed" their spiritual eyes and ears, refusing to see or hear the truth. This also explains why we are not condemned from the moment of conception. The spirit of a child is limited in its understanding by the body. A spirit without a body may go through a wall, but a spirit within one of these corruptible bodies must use a door. Also, though a disembodied spirit can see the door, the spirit of a (living) physically blind man cannot see. The physical body limits the spirit while the spirit is within it. In the same way, The spirit of a newly conceived child must wait until the body and mind have developed to a certain point before they can reach an accountable understanding. It is absurd to suggest that a zygote understands the law written on its heart and has any conflicting thoughts regarding it. Thoughts require synapses and brain cells, which the zygote does not yet have. And thoughts of understanding regarding the law of God written on the heart might require years of development and experience ( Deut. 1:39). 2 Cor. 5:10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." Romans 1:18-20 - "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
- Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
- For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
i.e., as I previously stated, man doesn't have to have the law in order to be held accountable by God for sins (ala Adam). He is without excuse standing before God on judgment day. Again, PROOF that the written law didn't have to be given for man to be held accountable, and that Adam and Eve were accountable before the fall. That idea of non-accountability has no basis in biblical truth. That which may be known of God is manifest (made known) in us, that not one of us have any excuse for sin, whether we have heard the law verbally or not.
As I've said before, the real issue is our state at conception. So then, what excuse does a zygote need?--What sinful deeds was the one-celled child busy committing while his body was being "knit" in the womb? The reason that it is said, "that which may be known of God is manifest in them," is because, "God hath shown it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen..."! Reading further down, we find that this passage is talking about pagan adults who "exchanged the truth of God for the lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator..." What infant ever bowed down before an idol? None. And zygotes do not have eyes with which to "clearly" see the evidences of the invisible things of God, which are found throughout the created world--so how can they understand yet? They cannot, and this passage of Scripture is misapplied to this issue. I've given this example before, but any mother honest with herself can tell you that their babies sometimes test them 'KNOWING' that what they're doing is wrong (sin), and then turning to look at the mother to see what her reaction will be. That (whether we like to believe it or not) is the ability to both understand what's forbidden, and to do it anyway. ..in a word, sin! They have knowledge of Good and evil. But even when we rationalize away evil claiming it's not evil, we still are held accountable. This assumes that the mother can read the baby's mind and heart. It also overlooks that the main occupation of a baby is learning. Everything they do builds their brains and causes them to learn. What Warren and these mothers are seeing is the process of learning. They cannot know what depth of understanding such a child has, or what they are really experiencing. It used to be popular to believe that tending to a baby as soon as it cried would lead to the baby manipulating the parents by crying unnecessarily. But now it is understood that babies do not have the capacity to manipulate, and are only crying because they have some genuine need. Such can be the result when adults try to read the minds of babies, and inadvertantly detect mature motives that are not there. That has also given justification to many child-abusers, physically punishing infants inappropriately. Those who attempt to make children unaccountable may try and use scriptures such as Deuteronomy 1:39, but it is without merit. There God said that the little ones and the children of the people that came out of Egypt had no "Knowledge of Good and Evil." But careful examination will show that this defense will not stand in the light of God's Word. Deuteronomy 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."
God is saying they had no knowledge of the 'sins of their fathers,' meaning they had no part in the previous rebellions, but not that they had no understanding of what was evil. The same principle is at work here as in the garden. Experiential knowledge in sin where they had not been the ones sinning this sin, or KNOWING that way of that sinfulness. It quite obviously does not mean they did not 'know' of the sin of their fathers, or that they didn't commit any sin, or that they didn't know what sin was, or that God gave them Canaan because they were somehow sinless. In other passages God clearly says they 'were sinful,' and He gave them the land not because of their righteousness, but because of the wickedness of the Canaanites. That whole idea of a lack of knowledge of sin means they were sinless is without any solid foundation considering the "whole" of scripture...
Here, Warren in effect rewrites the Word of God to suit his theology. The verse is clear: "And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." But Warren denies that these children have no knowledge of good or evil, and changes it to not having any knowledge of the sins of their fathers. That statement--indeed, that idea--is nowhere to be found in this verse. He attempts to make scholastic distinctions between knowledge of good and evil and experiential knowledge of good and evil, but to no avail. Just as it is true that the Word indicates that the "knowledge of good and evil," in the case of Adam and Eve, was obtained at the event of their first sin, the undeniable parallel indicates that these children who are said to not have the "knowledge of good or evil" have also not committed their first sin. What Warren calls "quite obvious," we are at a loss to find anywhere. He speaks dubiously of "other passages" where "God clearly says they 'were sinful,'" but he gives no references--and we deny that any such verses exist. God named the forbidden tree in the garden, "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?" After all, He could have simply called it, "The Tree of Sin." No, God used the name of the tree to link the first sin of Adam and Eve with the knowledge of good and evil. Even more interestingly, He also linked it to one other verse in the Bible: Deut. 1:39. It was God who linked the knowledge of good and evil to the first sin of man, and it was God who described children and "little ones" as not having the knowledge of good or evil. Upon describing them as such, He declares that these little ones He will bring into the promised land, even though their rebellious parents will die in the wilderness. God Himself declares explicitly that they do not have the knowledge of good or evil. God never speaks an idle word, and He always speaks the truth. The situation that brought about this description does not take anything away from it. It matters not that God said this out of His anger toward their rebellious parents. There are no circumstances or situations where God says something that is not absolutely true. Regardless of what prompted Him to say it, the fact remains that He said it, and that is all that is needed to establish it as true. God did not say that these children "were not complicit in their parents' sin;" nor did He say that they did not have knowledge of their parent's sin of rebellion. Rather, He said that they had NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD OR EVIL. None. Of what wicked adults did God ever say that they have no knowledge of (good or) evil? And yet, God Himself makes the distinction, in Deut. 1:39, saying that little ones have no knowledge of good or evil. Interestingly, that word, "evil," is the same word that is translated many times as, "wickedness." So God said that these little ones have no knowledge of wickedness. It is not that they have any righteousness to their credit, for they have no knowledge of good, either. As for the whole of Scripture, it remains to be proven which side is really the scriptural one. And so far, the "baby-burners" aren't doing very well. Genesis 18:32 - "And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake."
If there was but 10 righteous children here, God wouldn't have destroyed Sodom. But God did destroy Sodom, didn't he? Meaning this theory of righteous children, merely by being children, is quite nonsensical.
Because we sinned in Adam, we are conceived in a spiritually fallen state. In the zygote, that is not a state of active, rebellious wickedness; but rather, it is a state which will inevitably and eventually result in active, rebellious wickedness, as soon as the child's development allows it to gain an accountable understanding of good and evil. Being born fallen, we are not conceived as righteous. Having sinned in Adam, we are not conceived as "innocent." However, since it was not our personal sin, but Adam's, we are not held guilty (or, liable to penal sanction) by the God "who will judge every man according to his deeds." Therefore, the we are conceived in the unique position of both having no righteousness, and no sinful deeds for which to be held accountable. There is a difference between having a positive righteousness and merely having no sinful deeds for which to be punished. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3rd ed., p. 721: But while there is this atoning element in Christ's active obedience, it is yet true that the principal reference of the active obedience is to the law as precept, rather than to the law as penalty. It is more meritorious of reward than it is piacular of guilt. The chief function of Christ's obedience of the moral law is to earn a title for the believer to the rewards of heaven. This part of Christ's agency is necessary, because merely to atone for past transgression would not be a complete salvation. It would, indeed, save man from hell, but it would not introduce him into heaven. He would be delivered from the law's punishment, but would not be entitled to the law's reward: "The man which does the things of the law shall live by them" (Rom. 10:5). Mere innocence is not entitled to a reward. Obedience is requisite in order to this. Adam was not meritorious until he had obeyed the commandment, "Do this." Before he could "enter into life," he must "keep the commandment," like every subject of divine government and candidate for heavenly reward. The mediator, therefore, must not only suffer for man, but must obey for him, if he would do for man everything that the law requires. God's destruction of the people of Sodom was a temporal judgment against that city. It was not an eternal punishment. God numbers all our days, and has the right to end them when and how He sees fit. Ending the life of those children was not the same as sending them to hell. God has at times judged groups (nations, cities, etc.) with temporal consequences that also fell on the children and those who were not guilty of the offense that caused the judgment; however, the Bible, throughout, affirms that when it comes to eternal judgment, every man will stand alone and be judged for his own deeds.To be continued... |
|
Reply
| |
2nd Kings 2:23-24 - "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
- And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
Did the Lord really love these little children so much that He had the man of God curse them in 'His Name,' and sent two bears out of the woods to tear them to pieces? Of course not. Again, this whole idea is founded upon sentimentality and worldly scholasticism. It is bankrupt of any semblance of scriptural continuity or harmony. It is a twisted man made doctrine where a good God sends bears to tear apart 'righteous' Children. The believer of the Word is left to ask, what nonsense is this?
Once again, Warren has not done his homework regarding the meaning of key words in the text. Are we to believe that these were toddlers in this passage? John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, speaks of this passage: there came forth little children out of the city; the word for "children" is used of persons of thirty or forty years of age; and though these are said to be "little", they were so well grown as to be able to go forth out of the city of themselves, without any to guide them, or to take care of them; and were of an age capable not only of taking notice of Elijah's baldness, but knew him to be a prophet, and were able to distinguish between good and evil; and, from a malignant spirit in them, mocked at him as such, and at the assumption of Elijah; which they had knowledge of, and to whom, taught by their idolatrous parents, they had an aversion: some Jewish writers say, they were called "Naarim", which we render "children", because shaken from the commandments, or had shaken off the yoke of the commands; and "little", because they were of little faith: So these were not little children in the sense that Warren assumes, and therefore, it is his exegesis that is bankrupt, twisted nonsense. One more case of Warren's misapplication of Scripture to be added to what is becoming a long list. Others have agreed it makes no sense, but honestly cannot understand what is written in Romans chapter 7 about Paul being alive without the law. Romans 7:9 - "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
He is not talking about when he was a baby, but before He became a Christian. He says he was alive without [choris], a Greek word which means 'apart' from the law. In other words, being separated where he had no understanding of the law. He doesn't mean He didn't have the law (he most certainly did), but that he was separated from it experientially. And when the command of God came, sin revived. In other words, he was then brought close to the law and sin came alive so that he now had knowledge of it and recognized it as sin. He died in that he is no more 'apart' from the law, but dead with Christ that the law and sin is made manifest or known to him. In other words, by the law he now sees, he now recognizes sin for sin. Read on:
Paul said that he was "without the law;" but Warren says that Paul "most certainly did [have the law]." Whom should we believe? Warren admits that Paul had no understanding of the law, but insists that he had the law nonetheless and was only separated from it experientially. He offers no proof for this. If Paul had no experience with the law, and he had no understanding of the law, then one wonders just exactly how it was that he is supposed to have "had" the law. Then, Warren injects an idea foreign to the text, dropping the exegetical ball completely, by asserting that the death spoken of here is "dead in Christ"! The believer's death in Christ is a death to sin and death to the law (and even death to self); but it is NOT the death of condemnation due to the commandment of the law! Let's read more of Warren's explanation... Romans 7:12-13 - "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
- Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful."
That by the commandment, he might 'recognize sin' as sinful, which he didn't do before, when he was alive 'apart from the law.' ..being deceived. Not that his sin wasn't sin before, but that he didn't KNOW it before, being 'apart from the law.' It is the law that 'shined the light' upon his sin, working death in Him, to his good! It all depends on how we understand being 'apart' from the law. If we define it as only the written law, then the passage I quoted before (Romans 1:18-20) makes no sense. Because there we understand that man is going to be judged by God's law, him having never read that law. You see the point here? He doesn't need to have read God's Word written in the Bible to be judged by God's Word. A more open and shut case, I cannot imagine. God's law extends beyond a baby or man having to physically hear it or read it. It's made known to us because we were created in the image of God, and though the unsaved no longer conform to that image, these are still truths they know instinctively through creation. They have inherent knowledge of good and evil, that there is now no excuse.
Paul was without the law before he had an accountable understanding of the law. He was alive in the sense that the death sentence of condemnation that comes from knowledgeably breaking the law was not yet hanging over him. Warren assumes that sin can occur prior to knowledge of the law (or, knowledge of good and evil); but he has not established that as true--and thus, he begs the question. Though Paul speaks of sin working in him before his knowlege of the law, he does not speak of it as condemning sin, but rather, he is speaking of his sinful nature and tendencies. The text affirms that sin cannot work death except by the commandment when understood. It is only when the commandment came that Paul died, though the reason for his sin--his sinful nature--was working in him all along. The law here is not limited to the written Mosaic Law, but does include the law written on the hearts of all men; however, since Paul was raised and trained as a Jew, we cannot forget that his parents would have exposed him to the writen law even from infancy. Paul's first understanding of the law written on his heart would have had the written Mosaic Law as its ready expression. A more open and shut case, I cannot imagine. As for whether God will, or will not Save a particular child, I trust God will bring to faith all for whom He has died, and who He has chosen to bring to faith. He is able to do so, and who those are, is not our business. It's His Sovereign right to decide, not ours! And being God, He may in fact choose to Save some (or maybe even many) children who die in infancy. But it's His call, not our humanistic sense or sensibilities. God knows what we do not know. A child who will be wicked and unsaved as an adult, was wicked and unsaved as a child. Because you cannot go from a Saved child, to an unsaved adult. You cannot lose eternal Life, else it's not eternal! Therefore, if you were Saved as a child, you will still be Saved as an adult. Likewise, if you are never going to be Saved as an adult, you could not have been Saved as a child. That would be confusion and tortuous of scripture. So if this person who will never be Saved as an adult, had died as a child, he died unsaved! We are not speaking of " humanistic sense or sensibilities" here, but the justice of sending babies and small children to hell who have never committed any sin of their own. What justice is there in sending an embryo to hell, so that his first conscious thought (indeed, his only thought throughout eternity) will be, "What did I do to deserve this?" as he awakes in hell--having never known life on earth or sin or righteousness or the law or anything else? Jeremiah 7 31"They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind. Jeremiah 32 35"They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. Psalm 106 37They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons, 38And shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with the blood. These wicked idolators were burning their children to death in the name of "Molech." God said that they had "shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters," and that this "abomination" never even entered His mind, much less did He command such a thing! It is strange indeed Warren and his camp think that this same God would take the souls of these sacrificed children, who have just been burned in the fire, and throw them into an even greater fire (hell). The baby-burning crowd has no answer for this. Justice is a foreign concept to them. They know nothing of God's justice, because they are stuck on His sovereignty. They are ignorant of the fact that neither cancels out the other. Many are so focused on God's sovereignty that they lose sight of the fact that God's justice works hand-in-hand with His sovereignty. His justice is not "swallowed up" by His sovereignty so that justice takes on the meaning of mere divine arbitrariness, as if it were true that God can do anything and it would automatically be just merely because He does it. Such absurdity is where many Calvinists have landed. God certainly does have an elect, whom He has chosen before the foundation of the world--but how does He accomplish this electing? Does God drag unrepentant, God-hating sinners into heaven against their will? Of course not. But wait--what if God "ran out of time" with one of His elect, and the God-hating sinner died before God had time to bring the man to repentance and genuine faith? What then? Could not God drag the man to heaven against his will, merely because He is God and anything that He does is just? Does such a scene sound crazy? It is very similar to the way that many look at the situation of children who die before the age of accountability. God never runs out of time. He always perfectly accomplishes what He sets out to accomplish. If it is in God's plan that a certain accountable man will be saved, then God will bring that man to genuine faith sometime before he dies. In the very same way, if it is not in God's plan that a certain person be saved, then God (who never runs out of time) will allow that person to come to an accountable understanding, so that they have time within their life to knowingly sin against the God whose eternal power and Godhead are revealed to every man ( Rom. 1). This satisfies the requirements of justice. Just as God does not drag God-hating sinners into heaven, He also does not throw babies who are innocent of personal sin into hell. He does not need to, as He is in control of the length of every man's life. To be continued... |
|
Reply
| |
The true Christian should not loose any sleep over children being Saved or not, because we know of a surety that God is "Just and Good" and always does what is righteous and true. We should be satisfied and comfortable in that knowledge. There are many who understand that this is true but who find it hard to take. I don't think there is one single Christian who finds it easy to take that some Children are under wrath of God, but we trust that God is sinless, and whatever He does is just and righteous... Warren's graveside manners are atrocious! How could he be so callous and shameless as to tell believers whose children have died that they " should not loose any sleep over children being Saved or not, because we know of a surety that God is 'Just and Good' and always does what is righteous and true," when he has so emphatically taught that it would be just and good for God to send these "wicked" babies to hell for eternity? Yet, "We should be satisfied and comfortable in that knowledge"! Incredible!--And sad that any such teacher of the Word would teach such error and provide such counsel. Isaiah 55:7-9 - "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
- For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
- For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
For now we understand as looking through a glass darkly, but God understands all. He is infinite, we are finite. So who are we to argue with Him about his calling cute little babies wicked and akin to 'snakes and little lions?' It's His sovereign right to do so, to have mercy on whosoever He Chooses, and not to have mercy on whoever He chooses. We cannot pretend to know better than our Lord whom He must Save in order to be righteous.
Again, Warren begs the question in his usual style, assuming that his thoughts on these matters are God's thoughts on these matters, and therefore to argue with Warren is to argue with God. Evidently, though God's thoughts are not our thoughts, they can be and are Warren's thoughts. In spite of Warren's assertions here, God did not call "cute little babies wicked and akin to 'snakes and little lions?'" The fact that God chooses to have mercy on whomsoever He chooses does nothing to establish that He has not chosen to have mercy on little babies who have not sinned, or that He is selective (and exclusive) when it comes to saving such little ones. There is no pretension involved in declaring what the Word of God declares, that God will judge everyone according to his own deeds. It requires extreme arrogance and presumption to take on the authority of God and talk down to those who would disagree or object. In truth, the age of accountability doctrine is the offspring of the well oiled myth that man must Choose God in order to be Saved. This doctrine of course clearly contradicts scripture which says God hath both called, and has Chosen us unto Salvation. Unfortunately, some have distorted God's Word and claims that it actually means we must choose Him first. Then He will choose us. They teach that we must first do our part in accepting Christ, and then He will accept us. They are fond of saying, "You Choose God and he'll choose you." There is the rub. For new born babies and toddlers do not do this (which would make all children unsaved), and so they had to come up with an additional teaching to bridge the gap. Thus, "The age of accountability" was invented. ..otherwise, they would have to drop their, "you must first accept Christ" doctrines and confess in truth that Salvation is by God's Sovereign good will in choosing, and not by man's alleged free will. This is patently false. The doctrine, popularly called the age of accountability, springs from the innate sense of justice given to all men together with the numerous scriptural affirmations of God's justice in judging all men according to their deeds. It does not contradict Scripture which says God has both called and chosen us to salvation, since the baby-burners have not proven that God has not both chosen and saved all whom He allows to die prior to obtaining an accountable understanding. The need for sinners to choose Christ has nothing to do with this doctrine. It is not about how people are saved, but why they are condemned. Many people have grown old and died without hearing the gospel, and so had no choice to accept Christ. Nonetheless, they are condemned for their personal sins and deeds. Little ones are not saved because they had no choice to accept Christ; rather, they are not condemned because they had no sinful deeds for which to be condemned by a just God who will judge them according to those deeds. Romans 9:15-16 - "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
- So then it is Not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy".
So then, Salvation is of God's will, on whosoever He will, not of man's (supposed) Free Will. Many Theologians deny this and claim that it is of man's free will. So without this "age of accountability," then they would be forced to believe in God's Sovereign right to Save whoever He chooses (as He said) and not be in obligation to Save "whoever Chooses Him." Because let's be clear about it. If Salvation is of man's free will to choose, then God cannot choose whoever He wants (such as children), he can only choose whoever wants him. Else Salvation is not by man's free will and their doctrine is proven faulty. They can't have that, and so they teach that Children are Saved automatically 'outside of their doctrine of free will' by this magic wand called 'age of accountability.' They do this even though it is confusion and clearly a contradiction to their own teachings that God 'doesn't' Save by His own Sovereign Choosing, but by man's Free will to choose. ..inconsistency is the hallmark of error. It's just another dried branch of the disjointed tree called 'Free will.'
Again, this whole line of argument is irrelevant and false. The Bible affirms both the agency of God in choosing whom He will have mercy on and the agency of man in choosing to believe God through genuine, repentant faith. The will of man and the will of God are not contradictory, but complementary--rather than working against God's plan, man's free will works out God's plan. Warren's attempt to play one against the other for the purpose of supporting his argument against knowledgeable accountability is inaccurate and ineffective. The two debates have nothing to do with each other. He is right that " inconsistency is the hallmark of error," and it's clearly the hallmark of his position throughout. To be continued... |
|
Reply
| |
Let's go back to a previous point, which was overlooked... God knows what we do not know. A child who will be wicked and unsaved as an adult, was wicked and unsaved as a child. Because you cannot go from a Saved child, to an unsaved adult. You cannot lose eternal Life, else it's not eternal! Therefore, if you were Saved as a child, you will still be Saved as an adult. Likewise, if you are never going to be Saved as an adult, you could not have been Saved as a child. That would be confusion and tortuous of scripture. So if this person who will never be Saved as an adult, had died as a child, he died unsaved! It has been my position, from the beginning, that all children who die before an accountable understanding are saved through Christ at the time of physical death. I fully agree that we are conceived in a state of spiritual death, from which only Christ can resurrect us. We are conceived with a sinful nature ("shaped in iniquity"), which only Christ can remedy through rebirth. Not even a zygote comes to the Father except through Christ. This is not to say that Christ excludes these little ones, but rather, it expresses the means whereby all of them are saved. But this salvation through Christ is not concurrent with their conception, but concurrent with their death. The child who reaches adulthood has not lost such salvation, since they were never in Christ. It is true that an unsaved adult was unsaved as a child; however, that does not prevent God from saving that child if he dies as a little child. As for wickedness, it is more than having the innate sinful nature. Wickedness results from knowledgeably embracing that sinful nature, and wickedness increases as sin increases; therefore, it is not true that a wicked adult must have been a wicked little child. It is also true that if you are never going to be saved as an adult (i.e., unelect) then you could not be saved as a child; however, it does not follow from this that if such a person who is unelect were to die as a little child, he would die unsaved, as this assumes that God would permit unelect persons to die prior to reaching a point in their development where they obtain an accountable understanding and willfully choose to sin. Such an unproven assumption is where the confusion lies. These doctrines notwithstanding, God is sovereign and can Save any child, or not Save any child, and He does it regardless of age, ethnicity, work, parents, or understanding. Because in true Salvation, God will supply the measure of faith required! Salvation requires the faith of Christ, not our own. Let us take an honest look at the pertinent scriptures dealing with this question. For this popular doctrine has multiple and irreconcilable Problems! Notice again the emphasis on God's sovereignty to the point of rendering irrelevant His justice. Warren's assertion that salvation requires the faith of Christ, not our own, remains to be established. It is the sinner who must believe, not Christ who must believe in Himself. Faith is God's gift, but it is given to the sinner as his own faith, not as Christ's faith in Himself. Warren implies that those who disagree with him are not looking honestly at the Scripture, or they would see the multiple and irreconcilable problems. And yet, as we have thus far established, an honest view of the Scriptures he has presented can only bring to light the errors of his own position. 1.) There is absolutely no Solid Biblical Support for the doctrine! This is the first and foremost problem with this Doctrine. The passages that are frequently used in an attempt to support this view, falls miserably short in doing so. This is because it is a doctrine which was first formulated, and 'then' a search was made to try and biblically justify it. Backward Exegesis! Doctrines should originate from the Bible, not from man's private interpretations. Perhaps Warren has never been confronted with a proper and thorough argument for knowledgeable accountability, such as I am presenting. Nevertheless, there is plenty of solid, biblical support for this doctrine, as any unbiased reader can see. His theory that this doctrine was first formulated, and then a seach was made to try to biblically justify it, is a false accusation, constructed from nothing more substantial than Warren's imagination. Personally, I held to the traditional doctrine of inherited condemnation, until I was confronted with the scriptural evidence for knowledgeable accountability. One of the verses often used in justification is 2nd samuel" 2 Samuel 12:23. - "But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he shall not return to me.
This verse neither says, nor alludes to the idea that because this was a child it was automatically Saved. At best we can conclude that because David was a man of God (a Saved man), He believed that God in His sovereignty would Save his Child also. And many believe that all David was saying was that, "the baby has died, and someday, I will also." Nothing more earth shattering than a simple statement that he cannot come back to life, but that David shall die as he did. But this is hardly Biblical validation or justification to teach that unsaved parents have any basis for expecting that their Children would be Saved. Which is not to say their children won't be, it is to say if they are, it will be by the sovereign right of God to do so in mercy, not because of any idea of an age where sin is unaccountable.
Though it is commonly used as a proof-text, this verse does not offer strong support for knowlegeable accountability; but neither is it needed to establish the truth of the doctrine, considering all the other scriptural support. David did imply that his eternal home and the child's eternal home would be the same, but that is all. However, for Warren to hold up this weakly-supportive verse as the example of the lack of solid scriptural support for knowledgeable accountability is ridiculous. God does have a sovereign right to save even the guilty, through Christ who has provided satisfaction of justice. But does God have a sovereign right to condemn those who have done nothing for which to be condemned? Warren and his camp emphasize the sovereign right of God to save whom He will, and imply that it is also His right to not save anyone, begging the question of justice and culpability. If this were true, then what of a retarded or mentally impaired man who is over the (supposed) age of accountability, and yet cannot understand fully his actions? Do we make up another humanistic rule and call it "mental non-accountability" to bridge that gap also? In truth, we don't have to because if this retarded person will be Saved, he will be Saved the exact same way a baby will. Not by any humanistic thesis, but by God's sovereign right to have compassion on whoever He will. Be it a baby, a retarded man, or a sinner unworthy to lift up his head. Firstly, Warren has not established that the doctrine of knowledgeable accountability is humanistic, rather then biblical--begging the question, as usual. Secondly, no additional "rule" is needed, as it is the very same principle involved: knowledgeable accountability. There is no "gap." For Warren to assert that those who are unable to understand can only be saved in the same way as those sinners who do understand can be clearly stated in the negative: those who do not yet have an understanding who are condemned will be condemned in the very same way that those who do understand will be condemned. And one wonders just exactly what sin Warren would contend that these zygotes, babies and retarded persons would be condemned for. Romans 9:15-16 - "For He saith unto Moses, I will have Mercy on whom I will have Mercy, and I will have Compassion on whom I will have Compassion!
- So then, is is Not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD who showeth Mercy."
Can't get any plainer than that! God will not have mercy because someone is 12 years old, not because someone is 12 and a day, not because someone is a better reader, or a better worker, but for His own purposes and by His own will rather than man's free will. God will not have compassion on someone who is 3 and not on someone who is 5. No! That's not God's sovereignty! God will have mercy and compassion on whosoever he will, and their ages have nothing to do with it. And that is precisely why a child can be Saved, or that a retarded man can be Saved. Not because of some man made tradition of accountability, but because of God's sovereign right to Save whoever "He Wants" regardless of any merit, work, age, or mental fitness.
This is another attempt to assert God's sovereignty to the exclusion of His justice, as if God can sovereignly overlook the fact that a zygote has not yet personally sinned, and condemn them from God's sovereignty alone. That is not what this passage is saying. The fact that God saves whom He will does not in any way say that He does not want to save those whom He permits to die without an accountable understanding. Warren's attempt to burn "straw men," by pointing to certain ages ("12 and a day," "someone who is 3 and not on someone who is 5") is specious and avoids the real issue. God may save whomever He wants regardless of merit; however, condemnation is always a matter of merit (or, demerit). Condemnation is never like grace, or a gift--it is always earned, and God is always just. No one will be condemned because of some man-made tradition of inherited condemnation, but because of God's justice in damning whomever He judges as having sinful works and deeds ( Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Mat. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 20:12-13). To be continued... |
|
Reply
| |
(2.) We are all Born in Trespass and sin! The second problem of the "age of accountability" doctrine is the issue of man's wickedness. We are all sinful (in violation of God's laws) and are thus guilty before God. We are born with a nature in which we will sin. Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in Sin did my mother conceive me."
From the time that we are born, we are sinful human beings. Our nature, whether children or older, is to sin because sin was 'imputed' to us in the flesh by the fall of Adam. To impute sin in Biblical terms means it was given to us in birth. As another example, Christ's righteousness is imputed to us by Grace. In other words, it was unearned. In this same way, the stain of sin is upon us by birth because of the fall of Adam, so that we all will end up sinning. We are in a real sense, in bondage or slavery to sin. The judgment of which is not a wink, but Death! Is Warren contending that men are in violation of God's laws from the moment of conception? He is not clear on that, preferring to use the expression, "from the time we are born," "in birth," and, "by birth." By focusing on birth, he is avoiding the utter absurdity of claiming that a zygote can be guilty of personal sin of any kind. But birth is only metaphoric for conception, which is the real point at issue. It is true that our nature is to sin; however, the very definition of sin is in dispute. Warren and his camp want to see sin as a state or condition, so that merely having a sin nature makes one condemnable. The Bible paints a different picture of condemnable sin, telling us in no uncertain terms that God will judge every man according to his deeds (or works), not according to his nature. We are shaped in iniquity, but it is not our iniquity that we are shaped in, but Adam's. We are conceived in sin, but it is not our sin that we are conceived in, but Adam's sin. Our nature is to sin because we are the descendants of Adam, and all mankind sinned within him when he sinned. The theory that Adam's sin is "imputed" to mankind is not found in the Bible, but results from taking the Adam-Christ parallel to a false, philosophical extreme, unwarranted by Scripture. Warren points to Christ's righteousness, imputed to us by grace and unearned, and then tells us the "stain of sin" is upon us in this same way. In what same way? What he means is that we are under the condemnation of sin from the very moment of conception, even though we have done nothing to earn that condemnation. This is the absurdity of nominalistic federal headship. Having unearned righteousness imputed to you, resulting in your undeserved salvation, is grace; however, having unearned sin imputed to you, resulting in your undeserved condemnation, is injustice. Romans 5:12-14 - "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,
- (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not Imputed when there is no law."
The only way that man could escape this imputed sin which brings death, is through Christ. It cannot be escaped through non-accountability (we are all accountable), it cannot be escaped by good works (there is none good), it cannot be escaped by obedience (we have all transgressed the law) the righteous judgement of God can only be escaped in Christ. Sin did enter the world by one man, because all sinned as a corporate whole while in the loins of that one man. But God has declared plainly and repetitively that He will judge individuals for their own deeds, forever establishing that eternal judgment is tied to individual identity. Notice verse 13: "...for until the law sin was in the world..." That is speaking of the Mosaic Law. From Adam until Moses (and the introduction of the Mosaic Law), sin was definitely in the world. In fact, God destroyed the world by flood because of the wickedness and sin. Now look at the next clause: "...but sin is not imputed when there is no law." This last expression, "no law," is emphatic, meaning, where there is no law whatsoever. This is speaking of the law that is written on the hearts of all men. Notice, however, that more is needed than the mere presence of the law written on the heart for sin to be imputed. What is undeniably implied in this verse is that sin is not imputed when there is no law that has been violated. For if the law has not been violated, there is no sin to impute. Therefore, this verse directly contradicts the idea that the sin of Adam is imputed to us at conception in a way that is condemnable, since it is not our violation of that law, but Adam's. Warren again begs the question, asserting that we have all transgressed the law--as if a one-celled zygote could transgress a law. Of course, Christ is the only Way to heaven; however, sinning as an individual is the only way to hell. 1st Corinthians 15:21-22 - "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
- For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
Since this is undoubtedly true, then from the womb, we are all sinners. Those people who say babies don't have any sin are lacking knowledge of God's laws and truths. Since there are no exceptions to God's law, "the wages of sin is death," there can be no (theorized) non-accountability clause. Unlike the laws of men, the laws of God don't bend. There is none righteous God says, no not one! He didn't say that there are none righteous except babies. Those are the thoughts of men, not of God! There is none righteous, and that includes children (despite what some may claim). Romans 5:12 says: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." It doesn't say "all except for children," it says all. Since this chapter is speaking only of physical death and resurrection, then we must assume that Warren is implying that physical mortality and death are proof of culpable sin and guilt in babies. But his first statement here, " Since this is undoubtedly true, then from the womb, we are all sinners," does not follow. Physical death and mortality came upon mankind while we were in the loins of Adam, but such temporal consequences are passed on to his descendants as natural conditions, and not as condemnation of personal sin. If these results of Adam’s loss of physical immortality were in themselves a penal sanction, then such penalty would be immediately removed when the man was redeemed. The unassailable principle remains true: God does not punish what He has forgiven. Rom. 8:1, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Traditionally, this has been explained by saying that death for the believer has been fundamentally changed from a curse into a blessing, while death for the unbeliever remains a curse and a punishment. However, this only "side-steps" the problem. Since it is claimed that death for the believer has been turned from curse to blessing simply by changing the condemning judgment into a heavenly welcome, then it is also necessarily true that the only aspect of physical death that is a curse or condemnation is the judgment that follows for those who are hell-bound. Therefore, it begs the question to say that physical death proves condemnation and sin, since it only proves it if condemnation follows. The conclusion cannot be escaped that physical death is not a penal sanction or condemnation. Since physical death remains even when no condemnation or punishment remains, then physical death is nothing more than the natural result of our mortality, which itself is merely a natural condition with which we are born. Just as the gift of God is eternal life, the wages of sin is eternal death. Physical death is a metaphor for eternal death, but not necessarily a punishment for sin. Christ's death in our place required a judicial execution, and not merely that He die of some disease, accident or old age. When Rom. 5:12 says that all sinned, it means that all sinned while in the loins of Adam. It neither says nor means that all sinned as individuals. Verses 12-19 explain why death (spiritual and physical) and the inevitable personal sinning that results in our eventual condemnation come upon all men: because we all sinned in Adam. But just as no man is justified by the obedience of Christ until that man willfully embraces Christ, no man is condemned until he willfully embraces sin and the nature he received from Adam. It is not necessary to the parallel that condemnation be unearned and undeserved in the way that salvation is unearned and undeserved. When God said in Genesis 18 that if there were 10 righteous people in Sodom, He wouldn't destroy them, some professing Christians obviously think God was lying, because they insist the children there had to be righteous in God's eyes! Not so! They were burned in the city right along with the older people (revisionist accounting notwithstanding). God saved only Lot and his two daughters whom 'He had chosen' to Save. None of the rest were righteous in God's sight! Did God say get the Children out before I rain fire and brimstone, or did God bring out Lot and his house only? Here, Warren has become obnoxious and presumptuous, insisting that to disagree with him is obviously to think that God is a liar. I have already refuted this. Because we sinned in Adam, we are conceived in a spiritually fallen state. In the zygote, that is not a state of active, rebellious wickedness; but rather, it is a state which will inevitably and eventually result in active, rebellious wickedness, as soon as the child's development allows it to gain an accountable understanding of good and evil. Being born fallen, we are not conceived as righteous. Having sinned in Adam, we are not conceived as "innocent." However, since it was not our personal sin, but Adam's, we are not held guilty (or, liable to penal sanction) by the God "who will judge every man according to his deeds." Therefore, the we are conceived in the unique position of both having no righteousness, and no sinful deeds for which to be held accountable. There is a difference between having a positive righteousness and merely having no sinful deeds for which to be punished. God's destruction of the people of Sodom was a temporal judgment against that city. It was not an eternal punishment. God numbers all our days, and has the right to end them when and how He sees fit. Ending the life of those children was not the same as sending them to hell. God has at times judged groups (nations, cities, etc.) with temporal consequences that also fell on the children and those who were not guilty of the offense that caused the judgment; however, the Bible, throughout, affirms that when it comes to eternal judgment, every man will stand alone and be judged for his own deeds. The truth is, over 99 percent of the scriptures has to be either ignored, wrested, or tossed aside, in order to hold to the doctrine that Children are somehow automatically accounted righteous before God. This is an empty, meaningless claim, unaccompanied by proof. So far, every Scripture passage that Warren has offered has been shown to not support his argument; and many passages have been offered in support of knowledgeable accountability. Job 25:4 - "How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a Woman?"
Answer? ..Only in Christ. Not by being young, but by being chosen from the foundation of the world, born of God, justified in Christ. Because man is born of a Woman, he has the stain of Adam's original sin, and cannot be pure. It is obvious not just from this verse, but all verses of scripture that the children are sinful in God's sight. In other verses God calls them liars and snakes... Firstly, in this verse, Bildad the Shuhite is speaking (see v. 1). Yes, Bildad said it, but that does not mean that God agrees with it. In Job 42:7, God tells Eliphaz, "My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has..." Secondly, such metaphors as "stain" and "clean" are imprecise. What exactly is meant? You will need more than Bildad saying that all children are unclean to establish that children are conceived in a state of condemnation. Warren dubiously claims that "it is obvious... from... all verses of Scripture that... children are sinful in God's sight." Such a claim comes from his imagination, and not from the Bible. He has utterly failed to establish that God sees children as having been under the condemnation of sin from conception (or from birth). At this point in his article, we must conclude that he has come to the end of his argument from Scripture, and is now merely "pounding the pulpit" in an exercise of presumptuous question-begging, assuming that his argument has prevailed against the opposition. It has not prevailed, but failed. To be continued... |
|
Reply
| |
(3.) Accountability! (God's law Requires Judgment for Sins)The third problem is accountability! We are all accountable for our sins, and there are no exceptions made by God. None! Man can make all the exceptions that he wants, but in the end, it means nothing! Anyone who sins is accountable for that sin, except Christ be their propitiation. Not only is it true that God's law requires judgment for sins, but it is just as true that sin requires violation of God's law. Warren characterized the issue as one of making exceptions for sins, but that is not the issue at all. Rather, the issue is whether or not zygotes and "little ones," whom God describes in Deut. 1:39 as not having the knowledge of good or evil, have any sins yet. Anyone who sins is indeed accountable for that sin, but anyone who has not yet sinned in not accountable for what they have not committed. Ezekiel 18:4 - "Behold, all Souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: the Soul that sinneth, it shall Die!"
There is no exceptions made...
This passage contradicts the idea that Adam's sin is imputed to children. Not only are no exceptions permitted, no transfers are permitted--not even from one generation to the next! God is very specific here: His eternal justice is tied to individual identity, and the individual soul who sins shall die. We know from the context that it is eternal justice, and not physical death, because even the righteous physically die with the wicked. But there is an eternal death at the Judgment. And nowhere here does it indicate that a soul that has not yet personally sinned shall die because of our father, Adam's, sin. ...Even a sin in ignorance is a sin. It too must be atoned for. It is not cast aside as some unaccountable sin. sin is sin, and must be atoned for. Numbers 15:28 - And the Priest shall make atonement for the Soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the lord, to make atonement for him. and it shall be forgiven him."
There is no, "sin in ignorance that is unaccountable." It must be atoned for just as any other sin no matter if it is in ignorance or not. Just as our legal system would say today, "ignorance of the law is no excuse", likewise, ignorance of God's law is no excuse! Mercifully, we have Christ our high Priest today who atones for all our sins, whether sins in ignorance or known sins. Those who claim that sins of ignorance in a baby are unaccountable, don't really understand God's righteousness or law at all.
Again, Warren's misconceptions are set up as a straw-man. Advocates of knowledgeable accountability do not claim that a child (or, zygote) sins ignorantly. Rather, we contend that they do not sin at all, because sin (in God's eyes) requires a certain level of understanding of good and evil. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for those who have the capacity to understand it. Go back one verse, to Num. 15:27... "If one person sins unintentionally, he shall offer a female goat a year old for a sin offering." So then, how many infants do you think would line up outside the temple every day, with female goats in tow? If God considered infants to be guilty of unintentional sins, then He would have made provisions in the law for their parents to bring them to the temple for this sacrifice, but He did not. This nonsense is just another example of Warren's misapplication of Scripture. At every point and with every Scripture, Warren seems at first to make a valid point; but then, when it is closely scrutinized, it is shown for the error it is. It's curious how the proponents of age of accountability make different rules for people at different times in their life. While on the one hand they claim you must accept Christ in order to be Saved, on the other hand they do a 180 degree turn and say, but some don't need to do so, depending on their age. But how accepting Christ can be both a "requirement" for Salvation, and yet not be required for Salvation, is a mystery which they cannot coherently explain. This is the disjointed nature of their teaching." If judgment is required for sin (and it is) then nothing short of judgment will do. And if newborns cannot accept christ, and yet are Saved from their sins, then either accepting Christ is 'a doctrine of men and was never a requirement for Salvation' in the first place, or it is required and newborn babies are never Saved. There is no other option! Praise God, it was never a requirement, God has the Sovereign right to have Mercy and compassion on whoever he wants, regardless if they can't talk, or can't walk, or can't understand. Accepting has nothing to do with it! For God doesn't ask children, He chooses them. God's law requires judgment for sin, so babies who are Saved have had their sins forgiven just as we do. Not by being good, not by accepting, but by God's Sovereign Grace! ..Unmerited favor! We are conceived in a state of spiritual death, from which only Christ can resurrect us. We are conceived with a sinful nature ("shaped in iniquity"), which only Christ can remedy through rebirth. Not even a zygote comes to the Father except through Christ. This is not to say that Christ excludes these little ones, but rather, it expresses the means whereby all of them are saved. It is admittedly a mystery how exactly God regenerates and redeems the unborn. But it is just as difficult to disprove as to prove. The main force of my argument has been addressed to the main force of the Original Sin advocates' argument, that of the scriptural basis for condemnation from the moment of conception. Traditionally, the idea of an age of accountability has been regarded as based solely on emotion and "common sense," but held in contradiction to the "insurmountable" scriptural evidence for inherited condemnation. While I have not added anything as to exactly how God redeems these little ones, my goal has been to show the error of the claim that Scripture is silent and devoid of any support for their salvation, and defeat the false claim that Scripture teaches their condemnation. (4.) The way of Salvation!Knowing that God's law requires judgment, we know that Salvation of all people must be by Christ! Therefore, the fourth problem of this age of accountability doctrine is the inconsistency in the way Salvation is obtained. We're all Saved the same way, and yet this doctrines purports that children are Saved a different way. That's Ludicrous! They are not Saved by Age, by understanding, by comprehension, or by being born without sin, they are Saved just as God says. By Grace, through faith, a gift of God! A unmerited gift! It was not by works or non works, but by Grace! Not by being born, but by being born of God! No one gets Saved, but through Christ! And since newborn babies cannot "accept" by their free will, the Father must (as with us all) not only call, but choose, sanctify, and justify, making righteous! All by his sovereign good will and pleasure (as he said), not our own. God's law requires judgment for those who have violated it; thus, Warren begs the question again by assuming that all people have violated it. How can you admit that adults sin differently from those who are too young to understand (since adults sin knowingly and willfully), and yet have a problem with them being saved differently? Does the Bible not indicate that the will and understanding of an adult is somehow involved in his salvation? Regardless, what exactly the difference in how the two groups are saved is irrelevant to the fact that all of those who have no accountable knowledge are saved in death. If you have some need to demand that both groups be saved in a strictly monergistic way, it still works for my position. The assumption that divine election necessitates that some of these children who die before reaching an accountable understanding not be elect is a false, unproven assumption. Ephesians 2:8-9 - "for by Grace are ye Saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God:
- not of works, lest any man should boast."
So either God gave that baby the faith, or that baby is never going to be Saved. But one thing is for sure, a newborn baby cannot have that faith of it's 'own free will' as some misguided souls teach. It is all of God, whether we understand it or not. The same as with everyone who becomes Saved. We simply cannot have two different methods of Salvation.
John 3:16 - "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting Life."
So how would a pre born or newborn baby "believe" or "have faith?" This is the inconsistency of obtaining salvation by 'age of accountability' standards rather than by Biblical standards. One has got to be wrong. And so again, we know conclusively that there is no requirement to (by free will) accept or (by free will) have faith or (by free will) believe, because that would exclude all newborns. But the truth is much more biblical. And that is that like with Lazarus, God not only called him from the dead, He gave him the ability to respond and the legs to get up from the grave and the strength to come forth. Lazarus didn't have any ability to come of his own free will. He was dead! Likewise all unsaved (Children and older) are dead in trespass and sins. We are raised up not by free will, but by the will of God in Christ, according to God's election. He Called, He Chose, He drew, He Sanctified, He Justified, He Glorified. We can but give thanks and Glory to Him
Of course, Warren assumes that this grace-imparted faith does not involve the adult's free will, but it is not necessarily so. God is able, through His grace, to persuade a man to turn (of his own free will) from self, sin and the world, and embrace Christ in genuine, repentant faith. Since the man would not otherwise do so, it is a gift brought about by faith. But none of this has any bearing on the issue of knowledgeable accountability. How God saves the little ones is a mystery, and I am content to leave it at that, as I am certain that whatever way God does it is correct and right. In this respect, Warren is unnecessarily bringing the free-will debate into this issue. To be continued... |
|
Reply
| |
(5.) Baby Security means Adult Security! The fifth problem of the doctrine of "age of accountability," is this idea that all babies are Saved. If that were indeed the case (which of course it isn't) then All grown people would be Saved, because there is no loss of everlasting Life once one gets it (else it is Salvation based on continued merit). You see, this is the impossibility of this doctrine and how it is incompatible with eternal security or being sealed unto the day of redemption by the Spirit. If all babies were Saved, then when they grow up, they are still Saved, which means there are no unsaved people in the entire world since all were once babies. Did God give these babies the everlasting waters of Salvation that He says we'll never thirst again, and then they reach the age of 12, and all of a sudden it's all just a lie and they thirst again because they are now not Saved? That's the ridiculousness of this doctrine, and the twisted logic of this plan. And if you think that is ridiculous, if all babies are redeemed, that means they become unredeemed, and then some become redeemed again later on in life... Some try and circumvent scripture by saying, Child Salvation only lasts until they reach a certain age or accountability, and then their Salvation simply disappears? God's Word doesn't teach about vanishing Salvation at age 4, 7, or 12. God's Word says He is both the author (starter) and finisher of our faith! God's Word says he is always with us and will never leave us! God's word speaks of eternal life, not temporary life dependant on our works or age. God says no one can pluck them out of His hand. What do we then retort? That this is all wrong? John 10:28-29 - "And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand."
Do we say, "that's not true what God says about them never perishing, and having eternal life?" Does never perish now change to, "Oops, they just might?" If all children were indeed under God's Salvation, then they would never perish and have everlasting life, and no one could pluck them out of God's hand. And that would mean every man woman and child in the world (we were all once children) are Saved, and will never perish...
Again, Warren has set up straw-men. The issue is not any certain age, so his attempts to hold up certain ages as erroneous only look foolish. It has been my position, from the beginning, that all children who die before an accountable understanding are saved through Christ at the time of physical death. We are conceived in a state of spiritual death, from which only Christ can resurrect us. We are conceived with a sinful nature ("shaped in iniquity"), which only Christ can remedy through rebirth. Not even a zygote comes to the Father except through Christ. This is not to say that Christ excludes these little ones, but rather, it expresses the means whereby all of them are saved. But this salvation through Christ is not concurrent with conception, but concurrent with death. The child who reaches adulthood has not lost such salvation, since they were never in Christ. It is true that an unsaved adult was unsaved as a child; however, that does not prevent God from saving that child if he dies as a little child. It is true that if you are never going to be saved as an adult (i.e., unelect) then you could not be saved as a child; however, it does not follow from this that if such a person who is unelect were to die as a little child, he would die unsaved, as this assumes that God would permit unelect persons to die prior to reaching a point in their development where they obtain an accountable understanding and willfully choose to sin. Such an unproven assumption is where the confusion lies. (6.) Conclusion! In all points, the doctrine of the age of accountability is both inconsistent with everything that the Bible has to say about man and his fallen state, and incompatible with God's sovereign right, and lawfulness of Saving by Grace. We are all accountable by birth not by age. And if some were not accountable, then none would be accountable. For our God is a righteous God whose idea of Righteousness is far above that of man's perceptions. It is Warren's position that is both inconsistent with everything that the Bible has to say about sinners and judgment, and incompatible with God's justice. We are all accountable by sinning, not by being born, nor by growing old--and sinning requires the understanding of good and evil, and the will to disobey. Because our God is a righteous God who judges according to truth, He cannot call a man a guilty sinner unless that man has in reality sinned. Notice in Ephesians 2:3: "We . . . were by nature the children of wrath." That scriptures tells us that 'by nature' we are children under God's Wrath. We were always accountable for sin and therefore condemned. To be a child of wrath does not mean that one is physically a child, any more than to be a child of God means that one is physically a child. Eph. 5:5-6 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous ( that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. "Because of these things [sexual immorality, covetousness, idolatry] the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." One can only be a child of wrath by disobeying the law, and examples of such are here given. That disobedience which causes us to be children of wrath stems from our nature; however, it is not our nature that brought the wrath, but the disobedience! Moreover, another thing that should not be lost in the shuffle is divine election. Romans 9:11 - "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil.."
In Romans chapter 9:8-16 Rebecca had twins in her womb. And though the children had not yet been born, "having done neither good or evil," God called saying which one would be chosen. As it is written in verse 13,(Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated) And in verse 15 it says as God had said unto Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. In verse 16 it says So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. Shall we argue with God saying it is unrighteous of you to call Esau hated even before he was born? God forbid!
So here we have a verse that tells us plainly that unborn children have not yet done any good or evil! Yes, God chose to love Jacob and hate Esau. However, God knew that Esau would grow to adulthood, so this example is completely irrelevant to the issue. Now, if you can show verse where God hated an unborn child and let that unborn child die, then you would have support for such nonsense--but you cannot. Again, a Scripture that Warren has misapplied has turned out to support rather than contradict knowledgeable accountability. Yes, I believe there is accountability. But that means that we are all held accountable, bar none. It is not for us to question or judge the Maker of us all about what seems righteous to us. Is there unrighteousness with God? God Forbid! Therefore, God has the Sovereign right to Save whosoever He will regardless of who, what age, how, what they did or didn't do, or their understanding level. That is indeed what Sovereignty means! This is just more groundless pulpit-pounding, over things that have already been dealt with. Yes, there is an age of accountability. The Biblical age of accountability is CONCEPTION. That is exactly Warren's position! At conception, with only one cell for a body, with no brain with which to think, no eyes with which to see, no ears with which to hear, no mouth with which to speak. But Warren sees these one-celled children as wicked snakes and lions, worthy of everlasting hell! But he has failed to establish that from reason or Scripture. Sure, many can and do disagree with this, but they do not have any Bible verses to back up their belief that a person has to be old enough to realize that he is a sinner or be able to understand God's Salvation before he has real sin! The fact is, there is one way of salvation, one name whereby we must be Saved, and one Salvation plan for all. Whether Jew or Greek, Baby or Elder, Man or Woman, White or Black, we are all Saved by grace through the faith of Christ! The new popular doctrines are nothing more than excuses to hold onto modern tired doctrines like "we must accept Christ" and "we must choose him" and "we must have free will" and "we must sign the check" we, we, we, we! If they would take their eyes off "we," and put them on the Lord, they would see the truth. But this is the, "I want some credit of my own salvation, generation." And in order to have that credit or boasting for coming when those other sinners didn't, they must have a doctrine of they, of themselves, of freely accepting Christ. Which of course then means that a new doctrine must be invented for babies who can't accept Christ, in order to hold onto these unbiblical doctrines. ..Else the children must be Saved by Grace Alone. Sola Gratia! Of course, these children are saved by grace alone. Though they have no sinful deeds for which to be condemned, they also have no righteousness for which to be merited (as I have previously explained). For too many centuries, the witness of the Holy Spirit on this matter has been quenched by overbearing insistence of "scholars" who decreed that Scripture only supported the condemnation of infants who unfortunately died before being baptized. How pathetic and tragic that many bereaved parents even in this day and age find no more comfort from their pastor and church than this: "I'm sorry [that your child is in hell]. All things happen according to God's sovereign plan [even His sending your child to hell]." Thankfully, the vast majority of believers and churches believe in the truth of an age of accountability, whether or not they can actually defend it from Scripture. Hopefully, some will read this and see that the truth can indeed be defended from Scripture.Ken Hamrick, 2008 |
|
|
First
Previous
2-9 of 9
Next
Last
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Return to Members' Studies