(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...