Election: A Glorious Truth for all Christians

[DHK]

I have scripture that shows man is not accountable until he understands right from wrong.

Deut 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.

When the Israelites rebelled against God in the wilderness, God said they would not be allowed to enter the promised land. But he did not hold the children accountable because they did not know between good and evil.

You are taking this passage out of context as some others do. If you interpret this passage consistently in the way that you are doing, then no one under the age of 20 is accountable for their sin. Logically our justice system ought to let murderers of the ages 17-19 off the hook and go free because they don't know right from wrong. These "little ones" were all those that were under the age of twenty. Surely you don't hold the age of accountability at 20 do you? Are those who 19 years of age not responsible for their sins? They can murder, steal, rape, and be innocent of all charges because they have not reached the age of twenty?

If you use this verse that is what you are teaching. "Your children" referred to the generation that was below them. The generation of Joshua and Caleb had refused to obey God and enter into the promised land. The generation of their children, when they were young, did not rebel. It was their parents. Now 40 years later, their children would be able to enter the promised land. It was not they that rebelled. It was their parents. It was not that they didn't know right from wrong. They did. It was more likely (in today's terms) they were not fully aware of the political situation; not eligible to vote; not fully aware of the consequences of the actions of their parents. That is why we have a minimum voting age in our nation today.

Yes, Adam and Eve had one single law which they understood. So therefore they could be held accountable for this one law. But if they had done some other sinful act, they would not be accountable because #1 there was no law against it, #2 they had no concept of right or wrong other than the one command and penalty God told them.

We don't go by conjecture and guess work. There was no other sin. Adam's sin was the first sin. The Bible says it was.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

This is what Paul is saying here. Before the law man could commit sinful actions, but without law it could not be imputed to them.

No, it is saying that there was a law, and man broke it and sinned. He defines sin. Sin is a transgression of the law (I John 3:4)
If you are defining law as the law of Moses, then why did God destroy the world with a flood. Your theology makes no sense.

Do I have children? Only 8 of them. And no way did I ever consider any of them sinners when they were little. Did they do wrong things?

You contradict yourself. Doing wrong is sin. Are you redefining words?

Yes, they would fight with each other, lose their tempers and many other acts. But they were not accountable because they did not understand the difference between good and bad just as God himself said in Deut 1:39.

A misuse of Scripture doesn't justify sin.
Man is inherently evil.
He goes astray as soon as he is born (Psalm 58:3). The day that he is born he is a sinner. He has a sin nature and has the propensity to sin. That is why he is selfish, lies, and does wrong even from infancy.

What some are failing to understand here is that Paul was speaking of legal concepts in Romans 5. Did he say there was sin in the world from Adam to Moses? Yes. But was that sin imputed? No. Why? Because there was no law.

You affirm this; but falsely affirm it. There has always been law.
Read Romans 2:14,15. Man always has had God's law written on his heart. He was created that way.

And I don't know how you can claim that Adam and Eve were absolutely holy and perfect as God is. Man has never been equal to God. God cannot be tempted to sin, but Adam and Eve could and were. This shows they were inferior to God from the very beginning.

They were not God. They were not in every way like God. But God did not create them with imperfections. He looked on his creation and said that everything was very good. They were created in the likeness and image of God with a will to choose between good and evil.

Adam and Eve were created good. They were sinless. They had no sin. But they were not God. They could sin. It defies common sense to say they could not. If they were exactly like God, then they could not possibly have sinned when the serpent tempted them.

Jesus was tempted in all points such as we. Was He God? Was He sinless?
Jesus couldn't sin; but Adam could. Jesus was God; Adam was a man. Both had the choice. Adam made the wrong choice; Jesus never made a wrong choice.

And it is the same with Satan. He was created perfect or sinless, but he had the ability to sin.

Correct.

I don't know how you are accusing me of being unscriptural here, it seems to me that you are arguing that man was exactly like God when he was created. Man was never equal to God. If so, man could not have sinned.

You are saying that God is unable to make man in his own image and likeness and yet make him with a will to choose between good and evil. You are saying that God is limited to do certain things in his creation. Is God really that powerless?

Does God have to do what you say He has to do?

 

[Winman]

I agree with you that age twenty is quite high for the age of accountability. Nevertheless, that is the age God chose, so I have no problem with that. I would agree with you that they had no voice, they were under the authority of their parents.

Nevertheless, this verse shows the concept that a person must be of a certain age or maturity to be held legally responsible for their actions.

And I am not saying that Adam and Eve necessarily did anything sinful, in fact, I tend to agree with you that they didn't. But that does not take away the fact that they had the ability to sin. I don't see how anyone can argue against this.

God cannot sin. God cannot be tempted to sin. So man was never equal to God. Man was good, very good, he was sinless. But he had the ability to sin from day one. So, man was always inferior to God.

I know children can do wrong things, trust me. But that does not make them accountable. Why is this difficult to understand? Do we prosecute three year olds who steal a piece of candy and put it in their mouths when they are at the store with their parents? Do we label them criminals? Maybe you do, I don't.

Jesus was tempted, but being God he could not sin. I didn't say that, the scriptures say that.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

We are made in God's image. An image of something is not the object itself. I can take a photograph of my children. It is an image of them, but it is not my children. I don't understand why this is confusing whatsoever.

 

[DHK]

I know children can do wrong things, trust me. But that does not make them accountable. Why is this difficult to understand? Do we prosecute three year olds who steal a piece of candy and put it in their mouths when they are at the store with their parents? Do we label them criminals? Maybe you do, I don't.

Children, even of a young age do wrong, that is, sin. If they wrong their parents, they sin. If they wrong their parents they wrong God. They have disobeyed one of the Ten Commandments. At one year old a child can do this. They may not be prosecuted by the courts of man, but they will be held accountable by their parents, and thus by God. It demonstrates that by nature we are sinners.

 

[Winman]

Children, even of a young age do wrong, that is, sin. If they wrong their parents, they sin. If they wrong their parents they wrong God. They have disobeyed one of the Ten Commandments. At one year old a child can do this. They may not be prosecuted by the courts of man, but they will be held accountable by their parents, and thus by God. It demonstrates that by nature we are sinners.

This is difficult, because I understand your argument, and agree with it to a degree. Yes, if a three year old child steals a piece of candy at the store, they have sinned. They have broken one of God's Ten Commandments. I agree.

But to believe God would hold that three year old accountable and punish him or her forever in hell is very difficult for me to accept. That child is not old enough to understand the consequences of his actions. And I don't know the age a child becomes accountable, I suppose it differs with each child according to the rate they mature, but I would have to believe a child would have to at least be 7 or 8 years old before they can truly comprehend their actions. I have an 11 year old daughter, she is very mature, she seems like she is 25 years old. I have a 7 year old son, and he is very innocent and childlike, he almost seems like a 5 year old. He is smart, he knows math well, has played the piano for two years and is quite good, but very immature in other ways. He did accept Christ this year and was baptized, I questioned him before and he did understand sin and the punishment for it, but it has only been in the last year that I think he has matured enough to understand this.

But to believe as some do here, that a baby who has just been born is accountable for sin is obscene in my opinion.

 

[Rippon]

...to believe as some do here, that a baby who has just been born is accountable for sin is obscene in my opinion.

You are letting your personal sentiment govern what is true or not. Submit to the teaching of the Word of God.

For I was born a sinner -- yes, from the moment my mother conceived me. (Ps. 51:5 NLTse)

 

[webdog]

You are letting your personal sentiment govern what is true or not. Submit to the teaching of the Word of God.

For I was born a sinner -- yes, from the moment my mother conceived me. (Ps. 51:5 NLTse)

...and as defined as "one who sins", I'm sure you can tell me at what point in the womb the child committed a sin.

 

[Rippon]

...and as defined as "one who sins", I'm sure you can tell me at what point in the womb the child committed a sin.

Going by the Word of God and not sentiment -- at the moment of conception.

 

[DHK]

...and as defined as "one who sins", I'm sure you can tell me at what point in the womb the child committed a sin.

In Psalm 51:5 David was not pointing to an act of sin, but rather to a sin nature which is inherited. He was not pointing to any sinful act of his mother, a novel idea which is ludicrous. He was looking deep into the depths of his own soul right to the time of his own conception and declaring himself a sinner from that time forward. Remember what kind of Psalm this is. It is a Penitent Psalm. He is not calling for repentance on the part of his mother, but rather for himself.

 

[Winman]

Going by the Word of God and not sentiment -- at the moment of conception.

I am not going by sentiment, I clearly believe the scriptures show little children are considered innocent.

Matt 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Matt 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So Jesus is telling us heaven is full of sinners? And Jesus is telling us to become horrible little sinners like children are?

No, children are innocent. Yes, they do wrong, but they do not understand right from wrong and are therefore not held accountable.

 

[Rippon]

I am not going by sentiment, I clearly believe the scriptures show little children are considered innocent.

... children are innocent. Yes, they do wrong, but they do not understand right from wrong and are therefore not held accountable.

I'm sure others will chime in to illustrate how wrong you are about this Winman. Children are sinners -- therefore not innocent. Do they need redemption from their sins or not? Since they are considered sinners as I proved the Bible teaches, how can you insist that they are innocent? Innocent means perfection -- sinlessness, among other things.

 

[Winman]

Oh, I am sure others of your persuasion will chime in. Doesn't mean they are correct. I just showed you scripture where Jesus said "of such is the kingdom of heaven" speaking of children. Then he set a little child in the midst of grown men and said they needed to convert and become like little children or they could not enter the kingdom of heaven. So, if you are correct, we need to become sinners to enter the kingdom of heaven.

When David's son died, David said he would go to his son. David knew he was saved, he was a prophet. God called David the apple of his eye. David understood that his child was innocent and was saved.

2 Sam 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

David knew he was saved. If his son had been a lost sinner David would not have said he would go to him. They would be seperated forever.

 

[Rippon]

Oh, I am sure others of your persuasion will chime in.

You admitted :"Yes, they do wrong." Wrong means they are sinners in need of a Savior.

Tell me, many among those who died in the Great Flood were children. Were all of them innocent as you interpret the word?

There were many children -- even babies in Sodom,Gomorrah and the other cties in the region. They perished along with the adults. Were they all innocent in your understanding of the word?

 

[Winman]

You are not familiar with law. Innocent does not mean a person has not committed a crime, it means they cannot be proven or held to be responsible of being guilty.

innocent
A term that is often mistakenly equated to a plea of "not guilty." Innocence is not a legal term, but rather a philosophical, moral, or religious expression of nonresponsibility. By contrast, a not guilty plea simply means that the defendant is demanding that the prosecutor prove every part of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Many defendants who plead (and are found by the jury to be) not guilty are probably not innocent under any reasonable understanding of that term. Instead, the prosecutor may have simply failed to produce enough compelling evidence, failing to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Read that carefully. Notice that innocent means "nonresponsibility". It doesn't mean a person hasn't committed an unlawful act, it means they cannot be held responsible. This definition came from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

This is why we do not prosecute children, the mentally handicapped, or the truly insane.

You folks may know Greek, but you don't know law.

 

[DHK]

You are not familiar with law. Innocent does not mean a person has not committed a crime, it means they cannot be proven or held to be responsible of being guilty.

You folks may know Greek, but you don't know law.

Winman, we make decisions according to the Word of God, not according to man's laws.

 

[Winman]

Winman, we make decisions according to the Word of God, not according to man's laws.

Innocent is a very scriptural word and concept. In fact, the legal concept of innocence came primarily from the scriptures.

 

[Amy.G]

Is this not what we Baptists call "the age of accountability"?

I do not believe God sends babies to hell. Yes, they sin, but they do not understand what they are doing. I believe they are covered by the blood of Christ because of God's mercy. We even see this in our own court systems.

I did not know this was a controversial subject among Baptists.

 

[Winman]

Is this not what we Baptists call "the age of accountability"?

I do not believe God sends babies to hell. Yes, they sin, but they do not understand what they are doing. I believe they are covered by the blood of Christ because of God's mercy. We even see this in our own court systems.

I did not know this was a controversial subject among Baptists.

Amy I agree with you. Some here seem to believe that God would send a baby or small child to hell for eternity if they died.

Here is another definition of innocence. This is just from a dictionary.

1) The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:

a) Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil.

b) Guiltlessness of a specific legal crime or offense.

c) Freedom from guile, cunning, or deceit; simplicity or artlessness.

d) Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté.

e) Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance.

f) Freedom from harmfulness; inoffensiveness.

Notice especially that innocence is defined as "freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil"

Apparently some here do not understand this concept.

 

[DHK]

Innocent is a very scriptural word and concept. In fact, the legal concept of innocence came primarily from the scriptures.

Yes, Adam and Eve were innocent until they sinned.
When they sinned it was not only death but a sin nature that they passed down upon the human race. Thus "all have sinned." This statement is true because all have sin natures. This statement would not be true if all did not have sin natures for it would be possible for some to make positive choices throughout their lifetimes. But that is not possible for we have sin natures that make it impossible.

We are born with a sinful nature.
The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?
Whose heart? Yours? yes. And all of mankinds including infants.

There is none good, no not one. (an all inclusive statement).
They are all gone out of the way.
They are together become unprofitable.
There is none that doeth good.

There is no such thing as innocence. There was in the garden, until Adam and Eve sinned. Then innocence was taken away. The guilt of sin--that ugly sin nature was passed down--not innocence but sin.

 

[Winman]

Yes, Adam and Eve were innocent until they sinned.
When they sinned it was not only death but a sin nature that they passed down upon the human race. Thus "all have sinned." This statement is true because all have sin natures. This statement would not be true if all did not have sin natures for it would be possible for some to make positive choices throughout their lifetimes. But that is not possible for we have sin natures that make it impossible.

We are born with a sinful nature.
The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?
Whose heart? Yours? yes. And all of mankinds including infants.

There is none good, no not one. (an all inclusive statement).
They are all gone out of the way.
They are together become unprofitable.
There is none that doeth good.

There is no such thing as innocence. There was in the garden, until Adam and Eve sinned. Then innocence was taken away. The guilt of sin--that ugly sin nature was passed down--not innocence but sin.

I agree with you that we have sin natures. Where I disagree is that you believe Adam and Eve had perfect natures before they sinned. If that is so, then how could they have sinned?

I am not arguing that man does not have a sinful nature. That is obvious. What I am arguing against is that somehow man's moral nature changed in the garden.

I believed as you once. I thought Adam and Eve were absolutely morally perfect. I still believe they were sinless, but that is not the same thing. Yes, they had not sinned. But they had the ability to sin.

Do you deny that? Do you deny that they did not have the ability to sin?

If so, then man was inferior to God from the beginning, because God cannot be tempted to sin.

What I am saying is that man's moral nature did not change, what most people call the fall. Adam and Eve had the ability to sin before they sinned, they had the ability to sin after they sinned. They had the ability to do good before they sinned, they had the ability to do good after they sinned.

Morally, I do not see a change. The change was in consciousness. Before they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they did not understand the difference between the two. They had no conscience.

Having a conscience is not evil. Knowing good and evil is not evil, for God himself has this ability.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

This is the change that happened. Now they knew good and evil. This is not an evil thing, God has this ability and said so himself.

So where was the fall? How did man become more evil? He already had the ability to sin, how was this made worse?

You see, I am trying to show that the Calvinistic doctrine that says man had free will before sin and did not have free will after sin is false. Calvinism cannot show this, and that is what I am trying to point out.

 

[DHK]

This is the change that happened. Now they knew good and evil. This is not an evil thing, God has this ability and said so himself.

So where was the fall? How did man become more evil? He already had the ability to sin, how was this made worse?

You see, I am trying to show that the Calvinistic doctrine that says man had free will before sin and did not have free will after sin is false. Calvinism cannot show this, and that is what I am trying to point out.

The act of rebelling against God was sin. This sin of Adam brought a curse upon man, the woman, and all the land. Man could have lived forever. Now sin had entered into the world and all things would head toward a state of degeneration and eventually death. Everything would be in a state of constant decay. This is the curse. Along with that is that man himself would grow old and die in his sinful flesh. That physical change was a part of the curse. He also inherited a sin nature as part of the curse. This nature that he now has would give him automatically the propensity to sin. I didn't have to teach my children how to lie. They knew it automatically, right from the womb. But I did have to teach them how to tell the truth, right from day one. This is because of their inherited sin nature.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Romans 8:22-23 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
--The entire creation of God is in a state of degeneration, infected with the curse of sin. We, as well as God's creation, are waiting for the coming of Christ when we will receive our incorruptible bodies, and after that the earth will be refreshed.