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...