Age of Accountability

Which brings us to...

Rom 1:18 For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth,
Rom 1:19 since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened.

This talking about babies and infants, too?

 

I'm not sure. I don't think so. I think these verses, which the immediate context also includes verses 22-32, are talking about hardening and the potential (and in some case, actual) depths that sin will take a man. Not everyone is hardened to these depths. Obviously, children are not hardened to that extent.

But Rom. 2:12-16 refutes the assertion that people are somehow innocent until they have specific knowledge of the Law.

 

This contradicts Romans 7:9 Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life

BTW how does one break law...without knowing law? 1John 3:4 Everyone who commits sin also breaks the law; sin is the breaking of law.

To break law means the law is known, which babies and infants do not know.

 

tim; Evil no. Sinners yes. You should be careful Bob what you catagorize as equal. Being a sinner does not = evil. Also as I have stated before sin is a condition. Babies have a sin nature, just becasue they have not comitted the sin (action) does not mean that they are not sinful(condition).

I once knew a two year old who had a shake, and when daddy asked to have a sip the little girl threw a tantrum and told her daddy no that it was her shake and he could not have any. Sound sweet and innocent to you? Sounds selfish, self-centered to me. Does her not knowing her act was selfish and rude make it not so? No it does not. Why did she react this way, because she is sinful by nature.

BB; The baby should of given daddy a sip and because of that it will be condemned to hell. What a sad commentary. That is not all, Andy agreed also.

We all know they were born with a sinful nature because of Adam's sin, but to be condemned to Hell they must first transgress the Law and I am wondering which law did it transgress. All these grown men looking at that little baby and saying how awful it is and what it has done to merit such punishment.

God help us all.

 

Immediate context of Rom. 7:9 -

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”[a] 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. 13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.

In 7b, Paul is saying that the knowledge of sin comes through the law; he's not saying that sin did not exist until he knew the law. His point in these verses is that with knowing the law, his sinful nature made him to want to sin all the more.

And in the greater context of Scripture, I think this teaches that those with greater knowledge will be judged accordingly. Those with greater knowledge will receive many lashes, but those with lesser knowledge will receive but a few lashes. The same concept applies in our legal system - when someone breaks the law unknowingly it is still a crime. But the punishment is different than for someone who knows full well what they did. That's why we have, for example, 1st degree murder, 2nd, etc. That's why we account for mental disabilities, etc. If a mentally handicapped person commits murder, they will be punished - by being separated from society, but they will not receive the harshest penalty due to someone who commits 1st degree murder. But both are still crimes (i.e., sins).

 

He did say he was alive before the Law came though and it took the knowledge of sin to slay him.

 

Not so fast. I think everyone is condemned by virtue of their sin nature, even infants. No one in heaven will be there because of innocence; everyone there will be covered by the righteousness of Christ and His blood alone.

This is a separate issue of whether or not infants/children are actually saved. I think that they are, although I find it hard to absolutely prove such Scripturally.

What I am debating with Webdog is whether all are guilty or only some are guilty. I maintain all are guilty (though some more than others).

[ May 16, 2006, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Andy T. ]

 

Condemned to the natural death, which I will agree but to be condemned to the second death you have to sin yourself.

 

Scripture disagrees:
2Kings 14:6 However, he did not put the children of the murderers to death, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses where the LORD commanded, "Fathers must not be put to death because of children, and children must not be put to death because of fathers; instead, each one will be put to death for his own sin." (not for "sin nature")

Romans 5:13 In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to one's account when there is no law.

Where there "is no law" (understanding of law), sin is not charged to one's account. Brother Bob is correct, we all are condemned to a natural death (it is appointed unto man once to die).

 

The story of David's infant son dying is another instance of scripture disagreeing. David said, 'He cannot return to me, but I can go to him.'

If an infant is not considered innocent, then was David speaking of going to hell?

One might say, 'No, he was speaking of the grave.' That cannot be true either, else after that statement, David would have committed suicide.

 

BB; The baby should of given daddy a sip and because of that it will be condemned to hell. What a sad commentary. That is not all, Andy agreed also


The problem Bob is you assume I believe children infants, babies whatever you want to call them in your words WILL go to hell, I have never said they WILL go to hell I said if God wanted to send them to hell he would be justified in doing so because they, we are all sinners from birth. I personally believe they DO NOT GO TO HELL, because the character of God in the Bible would not do that, but IF he did I would be okay with that.

 

Webdog, again, let's look at the immediate context of 5:13, verses 12-14:

12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Your translation (Holman, I assume) says charge to one'e account - none of the other major translations translate it this way. The others all just say, "counted" or "imputed" or "recknoned". Adding the phrase "to one's account" appears to be a poor translation.

But the verses 12, 13a and 14 clearly state that those without the law are still sinning. 13b saying it wasn't counted means that it was not recognized as sin. And the verses in chapter 2 state the same thing. A sin is a sin whether one counts it or not.

5:12 states that we all sinned in Adam, and that is why we all die. If a person is truly innocent, then he will not be cursed with death. But we know that's not the case. Psalm 51:5 says that we conceived in iniquity. And we will all die spiritually unless we are covered by Christ's righteousness and blood alone.

We probably agree with each other on the matter of infant salvation. SFC pointed out a passage that seems to support such a view. But I don't think David thought his child was in heaven because the child was innocent, but that his child was there solely by the grace of God.

 

I am glad you rather they didn't go.

 

I don't wish to further aggravate this thread but I believe that the confusion here might stem from the differences between Reformed (Presbyterian, Calvinism) Theology and Baptist Theology on the matter of Baptism.

Reformed (Presbyterian, Calvinism) Theology clearly recognizes the 'long' history in the Church (Roman, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodoxy, etc) of infant baptism as a normative practice but I agree that a pretty strong case can be made for Believer's Baptism as Baptists practice it and profess it unfortunately or fortunately it appears early in Church History Baptism came to be considered the New Covenant's Circumcision (as the normative means of entry into the New Covenant) just as Circumcision was the normative means of entry into the Old Covenant. Whither this was part of the Christian inheritance from it's Jewish roots or a later infusion of the the legalisms of the Judaizers I honestly don't know but I do believe it's pretty clear that it is not Baptist Theology.

Regardless it is a very hotly contested topic in Christianity today.

 

Do you believe a person that states," I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God" is entitled to be baptized? Would your church in fact permit this person on this confession to be baptized?

 

When you say a person what does this include. Does it include infants that have learned to say dada and mama or is it a child old enough to understand that there is a Christ and He died for the sin of the world. Please be a little more clear for me. ok?

 

We had a discussion evening at church recently, and this subject came up. The opinion that stillborn infants went to hell was given, and this resulted in one lady (who`d had this terrible experience )being reduced to tears. Surely one must have had the opportunity of knowing what one is accountable for denying, before one is held accountable for denying it.
Gwyneth

 

That is right Gwyneth; Amen,

Blessings,

BBob

 

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,

Here we have a "body of flesh", laying on the ground, dead for all practical purposes.


and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Now we have that "body of flesh" up, walking around, because of the "Spirit" in side.


Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Which part of the person is appointed to die, flesh/soul???

And why is there only "ONE" appointment with death if a person consist of "two parts", flesh/soul, evidently "one part" doesn't contain the sin of the other, else it too would be appointed to die.


Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die.


Just what would a person/baby have to do in order to be charged with a "sin of the soul", "Born in a body of flesh", no, that part has an appointment with death from which it can't escape, but the soul doesn't, can anything exist with sin and not have an appointment with death, Absolutely not

The "Body of flesh" (lust) causes the "Conscience/Mind/Heart/Soul" to sin, but to commit that sin, the "conscience" must submit to that lust.


Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Can/does babies do this, are "THEIR SOULS" charged with sin which "THEY" haven't "Conscientiously" committed???

I wonder why it is that people can't see this separation of flesh and soul in the plan of salvation, but they certainly can when someone dies??

 

Me4Him, you're going Gnostic on us again! All sin does not come from the body. "Desire" does not have to be fleshly desire.

If all sin is located in the body, how did Satan and the demons sin? They are angels - they have no fleshly body.

You make it sound like our spirits are pure and sinless. Is this what you believe?

Yes, sin brought decay and death to the body, but it also brought death to the soul -- death to the soul was our separation from God due to sin.