You just posted what comes immediately before it.
Do you understand what the word "viable" means, Ann? Saying a child's soul is not "morally viable" is not the same thing as saying that the child lack's a sin nature. It is saying that the child's moral capabilities are undeveloped, which you surely cannot argue with. The definition of "viable" is "capable of working successfully; feasible." Therefore, if Pearl says a child is not a "morally viable" being, he is saying his/her moral structure is not capable of working properly, which is it not.
I believe that God is just and God is always right. Should there be infants in hell, they are there rightly because of our holy God. If they are not, they are rightly in heaven because of our holy God. I do not believe anyone on this earth is "innocent". Yes, they are responsible for their sin because it's certainly not anyone else's sin. It's their own. God doesn't ignore sin. If you say that He does, YOU are wrong.
Really?? I guess you don't believe Paul's writings to be inspired, then?
Romans 3, NASB
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.[Emphasis added]
That phrase "passing over" says that God does exactly what you claim He does not. It is the word
paresis and it means "passing over, letting pass, neglecting, disregarding." Such is the mercy of God, that rather than destroy us as He should, He disregards our sin, even when we are vile sinners incapable of believing in Him, until such time as we are drawn to Him, called to Him, and justified by faith -- or not. In which case, we die and pass into hell.
For you to say "maybe" infants are in hell also denies His mercy and the teachings of the Bible, which don't specifically teach an "age of accountability" but certainly -- like the concept of the Trinity -- support its existence. For example, Romans 1:18ff teaches that we are responsible for recognizing the evidence of God through the creation, and Acts 17:31 states that we find the witness of God in the Scriptures. How does an infant grasp the concepts of the creation, or the Word? It is a ridiculous belief to think God will hold such a morally nonviable person accountable for his/her sin. This applies to the mentally challenged as well, such as those with Downs' Syndrome.
Of course all men are born spiritually dead (without the natural ability to respond) and under the condemnation of sin. That is what the sin nature is about. Christ nonetheless seeks to draw all men to Himself through the ministry of the Spirit and bore upon Himself that condemnation for man by His death on the cross. The accountability issue then is turning from self trust in good works or from apathy and a denial of accountability to God to trust in Christ. It is evident in John's gospel that the Spirit’s ministry of convicting and giving demonstrable proof to men relates to their trust or rejection of Christ.
John 16
8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;
9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me;
11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged."
Perhaps you believe this leaves a lot of room for equivocation regarding when the age of accountability begins. But speaking both as a man holding a Masters in Behavioral Psychology and as Christian, I assure you, there is not. Some claim it could take as long as the first 20 years of a person's life, but I find that ridiculous as well. Our juvenile court system has gradually reduced their own legal definition of accountability from 16 or 17 to about age 12 now, and there have even been 10-year-olds charged as adults when suspected of violent crimes. However, the understanding of right vs. wrong comes even much earlier than that.
A child essentially knows the word "no" at a very young age, as young as 18 months old. For a few more months, perhaps until age three or so, "No!" frequently prevents them from touching, poking, pounding, running, etc. But then sets in defiance, and "No!" becomes a challenge to test their power. It is that point that a judgment is being made on a regular basis: Is the reward greater than the punishment? When such thinking starts, the sin nature takes hold. Within another three years, a child knows most of the moral and legal boundaries he/she will ever know in this world, and that, I believe, is when the age of accountability is reached. It might vary by a year either way, but not much more than that. Again, I qualify that statement by excepting the mentally challenged.
It is a scientific fact that 90% of our personalities have been set in stone by the time we are three. Our personality directly relates to our willingness to challenge rules, and those of us who are more adventurous in doing so will have a far more difficult time in life, and in understanding the revelations of God, though by no means does that mean such an adventurous individual cannot come to Christ at an early age. It depends on their willingness to read, observe, study, consider, reason and accept. It is even stated in Romans 2:14-16 that those who never have a chance to hear the gospel and the name of Jesus will be judged by their conscience, and how they have handled the self-realization of right vs. wrong and their thoughts, words and deeds subsequent to that moment.
Now, one can accept or reject these thoughts as you see fit. I don't care one way or another. These are biblical truths that not just I, but far more intelligent men than myself, have gleaned from Scripture. It is quite easy to say, "Infants may be in hell, or they may not be," but that is a rather lazy way out of the issue. The evidence is overwhelming, and I have to wonder, if one believes that infants might perhaps be in hell, how that one can live with the basic Baptist teaching that they are not?
III. Man
Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. [Emphasis added] Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.
Of course, I realize not everyone on the Baptist Board is
Southern Baptist, but nonetheless, some 80% of Baptist churches in the U.S. have modeled their own faith statements after the BF&M because it is excellent theology. As to the arguments laid out here, these facts, not incidentally, destroy the concept of strict Calvinism. I've had enough of this. God bless. I'm done here.
