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...