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...