The Age of Accountability

[Matt Black]

You haven't answered my question: in what way does this sacramental soteriology differ from the baptismal regeneration and other such sacramental soteriology of the Catholics? Please answer the question rather than deflecting it

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[John Gilmore]

Matt Black,

I thought already had by contrasting the similar forms of the Papists and Baptists with the Lutheran soteriology.

The preaching of the Word, Baptism, Absolution, and Communion are not meritorious acts or ordinances that please God, as the Papists and Baptists teach, but gracious gifts that God is pleased to give man. Man does not serve God or merit any favor or grace by hearing the gospel or receiving the sacraments. God is pleased to serve man and to save him through word and sacraments when we believe we are received into grace for Christ's sake.

 

[Matt Black]

What you have just stated is exactly what RCs teach and exactlt NOT what Baptists teach

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[koreahog2005]

John, I think you misunderstood Brooks’ quote. He was not uncertain about the meaning of “baptizo.” Some sprinklers argue that Jesus was not under the water of the Jordan River and that the phrase “come up out of the water” means “come up from the water” (up the river bank). In other words, they argue that his feet might have been wet, but He wasn’t all the way under the water. The Greek preposition “ek” used in Mark 1:10 is translated “from” 181 times in the New Testament and “out of” 162 times. For example, “from” is used in Matthew 26:42 (cup passing from me), and “out of” is used in Matthew 7:5 (beam out of eye). In any case, I doubt that John and Jesus would go to the Jordan river for sprinkling. They could sprinkle anywhere. Brooks was saying that because the meaning of “baptizo” is certain, the meaning of the phrase “come up out of the water” is “almost certainly” come from beneath the water. I noticed that you did not comment on the verb for “sprinkle” (“rhantizo”).

John, you said:

Sorry, I meant Acts 2:38, 39. The people were told the promise of baptism was for their children. If children were not be baptized, Peter would not have mentioned them. In fact, he is directing them to be baptized.

Let’s look at Acts 2:39: “For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.”

Baptism is not mentioned in this verse. Peter mentioned three groups of people: you (those who asked, “What shall we do?”), your children, and “all who are far off.” You said Peter was directing them to be baptized. How could “all who are far off” be baptized? The ones who were baptized in verse 41 were the ones “who had received his word.” The promise that he mentioned in verse 39 is a reference to the promise of Joel that he quoted in verse 21: “EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED.” The promise of salvation was for the group that received his word, their children (future generations), and “all who are far off.”

You said:

It is an object lesson to have the faith of a little child.

No, it is an object lesson to have the humility of a little child. Remember that their question was about who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:1).

You asked:

What was the source of John's joy other than his faith in Christ?

The source of John’s joy was the Holy Spirit.

Finally, John, you said:

I will stick with my KJV, "He that believeth not shall be damned." Most of your arguments are based on fanciful translations and word interpretations from your baptist scholars.

I don’t understand how there’s any appreciable difference with the NASV except in tense: “He who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” In Greek, it’s “o de apistesas katakristhesetai.”

Katakristhesetai – from katakrino (condemn, damn). Krino means “judge.”
Apistesas – from apisteo (disbelieve, believe not). Pisteuo means “believe.”
O – he
De – but

The translation I use on this and other forums is the New American Standard Version (NASV). If you’ve participated in other forums, you probably know that it is the version preferred for theological debates because it is the most literal translation. When I studied Greek in the early 80s, I used it to check my work when I translated portions of the Greek text. It follows the Greek text in exact order. Perhaps you can explain your objection to the NASV translation of Mark 16:16. “Believeth not,” using an older style of English, means the same thing as “disbelieve.” The NASV does put “disbelieve” in its proper tense, aorist active participle (“having disbelieved”). The late Huber Drumwright described the aorist participle:

An aorist participle has punctiliar action, which has already been associated with the aorist tense of the verb (10.1). The time of action for an aorist participle, however, must be determined with reference to the leading verb of its sentence (19.1). The time of an aorist participle will be antecedent to the time of the leading verb. . . . As a rule when an aorist participle is translated in a temporal clause, the English translation will be in the perfect or pluperfect.

(Drumwright, An Introduction to New Testament Greek, 1980, page 112, 116)

Thus, the disbelief occurs prior to the condemnation. In the NASV, the disbelief is put into the perfect tense, as Drumwright mentioned. Spiros Zodhiates (a Greek man) commented on verse 16:

The word “believeth” is pisteusas (from pisteuo [4100]), an aorist participle referring to one who has believed at some time in the past. Also, baptistheis (907), translated “is baptized,” is an aorist participle but in the passive voice. This form refers to an act of outward obedience, in this case, baptism. Therefore, the correct translation here should be stated, “He who believed and who was baptized shall be saved.” However, the Lord adds, “. . . but he that believeth not shall be damned.” It should be noted that this negative statement does not include a reference to baptism, making it clear that what saves a person is living faith in Jesus Christ.

(Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study New Testament, 1991, page 183)

If tense is your concern, perhaps you are trying to use this verse to say that a person can be saved through faith and baptism, and then later lose his salvation through disbelief. Actually, the verse is presenting an “either/or” scenario. If a person has true faith, they are saved. If a person disbelieves, they are condemned. In both cases, an ultimate, final decision is made when the person is under special conviction. If the person makes an ultimate, final decision to surrender his life to Christ in repentance and faith, he is saved forever. If the person never makes such a decision to surrender to Christ, or if the person makes an ultimate, final decision to reject Christ, he is condemned forever.

Well, it’s bedtime in Korea again.

 

[Eric B]

The doctrine of an age of accountability is laughable. Why? Because if it were REALLY true then the most logical conclusion would be to KILL ALL BABIES BEFORE they reach the age so everyone would go to heaven and no one would perish in Hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on people...lets use our heads.

I had mentioned this before. God does not grant us that authority, so using it as argument is ridiculous.

 

[Eric B]

Well, isn't obedience a good work? And aren't good works meritorious for a believer? Baptist may not use the word but they share the same concept with the Papists.

This was answered in the quote. Obedience comes after saving faith. "Obeying" with a good work before that means nothing. It would only be "meritorious" in the sense of hearing God say "well done" in the resurrection, and winning crowns for service. NOT for salvation. I think you're reading your position, where baptism saves, into it, and thus confusing works as a "means of grace", with works done because we love Him (John 14:15, 23, 1 John 5:6)

 

[superdave]

The doctrine of an age of accountability is laughable. Why? Because if it were REALLY true then the most logical conclusion would be to KILL ALL BABIES BEFORE they reach the age so everyone would go to heaven and no one would perish in Hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on people...lets use our heads.

Wow, a very Biblical position on the topic, of course that would be what would happen if the age of accountability were true.

I don't sweat it that much, since I know that God is just and righteous, and whatever he chooses to do with infants who die will be the right thing. And I can have assurance that those infants who are chosen by God will be in heaven.

 

[BrotherJoe]

Brother Koreahog said:

"3. Infants without faith saved

The New Testament does not discuss the salvation of infants dying in infancy. In the Old Testament, David’s comment about going to the dead child (2 Samuel 12:23) indicates that David knew he would see the child again in heaven. It would have been no comfort to go to the dead child’s body. He was discussing going to the resurrected child in heaven some day. "

ME (BROTHER JOE): If a child is regenerated in infancy by the Holy Ghost, most surely that infant would have faith as a result of quickening. No man goes to heaven without faith (although he himself does not produce it, but rather the Holy Ghost.) One cant possess the Holy Ghost and not have any faith in the true God, nor can one have faith in the true God without possessing the Holy Ghost.

Brother Joe

 

[BrotherJoe]

Brother Koreahog:

BROTHER JOE SAID: The doctrine of an age of accountability is laughable. Why? Because if it were REALLY true then the most logical conclusion would be to KILL ALL BABIES BEFORE they reach the age so everyone would go to heaven and no one would perish in Hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on people...lets use our heads.

BROTHER KOREAHOG RESPONDED: Thus, the only people who die before reaching the age of accountability are elect people


ME BROTHER JOE's REPLY: Brother Koreahog, can you give me the scripture you are relying upon for your doctrinal assertion above?

Also, how does a grown up person become born again, and does this differ from how an elect born again infant who dies in infancy becomes born again? (Please support your docrinal beliefs on how one becomes born again with scripture)

Thanks for your reply in advance.

Brother Joe

 

[John Gilmore]

koreahog2005,

The translation I use on this and other forums is the New American Standard Version (NASV).

Lutheran scholars tell me the KJV is an altogether accurate translation of the received text. The plain meaning of the KJV is in perfect agreement with the doctrine of my church. I will not be misled by new translations based on corrupt manuscripts and new interpretations formulated by Baptist apologists.

 

[koreahog2005]

Brother Joe, you said the following:

If a child is regenerated in infancy by the Holy Ghost, most surely that infant would have faith as a result of quickening. No man goes to heaven without faith (although he himself does not produce it, but rather the Holy Ghost.) One cant possess the Holy Ghost and not have any faith in the true God, nor can one have faith in the true God without possessing the Holy Ghost.

Without getting into all the details of the salvation process, I think I can say that you and I agree that elect infants are totally depraved and that God must counteract that depravity at some point. While the infant is physically alive, however, that infant is incapable of intellectually understanding the gospel. Thus, a physically living infant is incapable of believing the gospel. You may be familiar with W.G.T. Shedd, a five-point Calvinist Presbyterian professor who lived from 1820 to 1894. He commented on the difference between adult regeneration and infant regeneration:

The state of things in which the regeneration of an adult occurs, namely, after conviction of sin and more or less opposition to the truth, is entirely diverse from that in which the regeneration of a dying infant occurs; namely, in unconsciousness and without conviction of sin.

(Shedd, Calvinism: Pure & Mixed: A Defence of the Westminster Standards, pages 63-64)

A spiritually unconscious infant is incapable of repentance and faith. Shedd also wrote about the growth process for elect infants after they die:

Complete sanctification at death frees the soul of a regenerate infant from all remainders of the corruption inherited from Adam, but does not convert it into an adult soul, any more than the complete sanctification of an ordinary regenerate adult makes him equal in mental power to St. Paul or St. Augustine. Complete sanctification at death frees the infant’s soul, the child’s soul, the youth’s soul, the man’s soul, from indwelling sin, but leaves each soul in the same class in which it finds it, and starts it on an endless expansion of its faculties and its holiness, and not upon a long, wearing struggle with remaining corruption. In this way, “one star differeth from another star in glory”, while all are equally and alike the pure and gleaming stars of heaven, not the “wondering stars” of sin and hell.

(Shedd, Calvinism: Pure & Mixed: A Defence of the Westminster Standards, page 125)

The elect infant who dies in infancy cannot intellectually understand the gospel until after physical death. God has always known that some elect infants would die in infancy. God, however, has also always known that had those same elect infants lived past the age of accountability, those infants would have surrendered their lives to Jesus in repentance and faith.

Earlier, I said that the only people who die before reaching the age of accountability are elect people. In response to that you said the following:

Brother Koreahog, can you give me the scripture you are relying upon for your doctrinal assertion above?

By examining several passages in the Bible, we can understand that condemnation during the final judgment is based on works:

“And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.” (Revelation 20:13)

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” (2 Corinthians 5:10)

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and WILL THEN RECOMPENSE EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.” (Matthew 16:27)

“And if you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each man’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay upon earth.” (1 Peter 1:17)

Infants dying in infancy are incapable of performing morally significant works (deeds). They are incapable of committing willful sins. Thus they are not condemned during the final judgment. Those who are condemned, the non-elect, must live past the age of accountability so that they will commit morally significant works for which they will be condemned.

Finally, Brother Joe, you said:

Also, how does a grown up person become born again, and does this differ from how an elect born again infant who dies in infancy becomes born again? (Please support your docrinal beliefs on how one becomes born again with scripture)

The answer to this would be complicated and long, so I would suggest starting another thread to discuss how a grown man is born again. In the quote above, Shedd gave the five-point Calvinist view about how the regeneration of an adult differs from the regeneration of an infant. I am not a five-point Calvinist, but I am glad they agree with me that infants are treated differently than adults.

 

[koreahog2005]

John, you said the following:

Lutheran scholars tell me the KJV is an altogether accurate translation of the received text. The plain meaning of the KJV is in perfect agreement with the doctrine of my church. I will not be misled by new translations based on corrupt manuscripts and new interpretations formulated by Baptist apologists.

The received text (Textus Receptus) is a bit different from Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (aleph) in some places. For example, in Mark 1:2 in the received text, we find the phrase, “as it is written in the prophets.” The modern versions have instead the phrase, “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet.” The received text seems to be superior here because the quoted passages come from both Malachi and Isaiah. The Greek scholar A.T. Robertson commented on Mark 1:2:

In Isaiah, the prophet (en twi Esaiai twi prophth). The quotation comes from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. The Western and Neutral classes read Isaiah, the Alexandrian and Syrian, "the prophets," an evident correction because part of it is from Malachi. But Isaiah is mentioned as the chief of the prophets. It was common to combine quotations from the prophets in testimonia and catenae (chains of quotations). This is Mark's only prophetic quotation on his own account (Bruce).

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=mr&chapter=1&verse=2

The problem with the old King James Version (Authorized Version), however, comes with the old style English words that are used. For example, the old King James Version has the following for Philippians 1:27:

“Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.”

The word “conversation” has a different meaning now than it did long ago. It used to mean “personal conduct.” Now it means “talk.” The New King James Version is based on the same received text as the old King James Version, but the language has been updated. The New King James Version has the following for Philippians 1:27:

“Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.”

The New American Standard Version has the following for Philippians 1:27:

“Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ; so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.”

The NASV literally translates the Greek word “politeuomai” as a verb (“conduct yourselves”), whereas the KJV and the NKJV translate it as a noun (“let your conversation be”; “let your conduct be”). Thus, for theologians who are debating an issue and want the most literal translation, the NASV is preferred. The Greek scholar A.T. Robertson commented on the verse:

Let your manner of life (politeuesqe). Old verb from polithß, citizen, and that from poliß, city, to be a citizen, to manage a state's affairs, to live as a citizen. Only twice in N.T., here and Acts 23:1. Philippi as a colony possessed Roman citizenship and Paul was proud of his own possession of this right. The Authorized Version missed the figure completely by the word "conversation" which did refer to conduct and not mere talk as now, but did not preserve the figure of citizenship. Better render, "Only do ye live as citizens." Striving (sunaqlounteß). Rather, "striving together" as in an athletic contest. Late and rare word (Diodorus). "The very energy of the Christian faith to produce energetic individualities" (Rainy). "Striving in concert" (Lightfoot). For the faith (th pistei). For the teaching of the gospel, objective sense of pistiß (faith).

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=php&chapter=1&verse=27

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
What you have just stated is exactly what RCs teach and exactlt NOT what Baptists teach

Yours in Christ

Matt

Before you dismiss the comparison between Papist and Baptist sacramental soteriology, consider Absolution. In Papist Absolution, the sinner is forgiven because of works of penance, indulgences obtained from the Pope, the merit of the saints, the sacrifice of the mass, and prayers to Mary. And, if that isn't enough, he can make up the difference with time in Purgatory. In Baptist Absolution, the sinner is forgiven because of works of surrendering one's life, the decision for Christ, the sinner's prayer, and the purpose-driven life. And, if that isn't enough, he may receive a lesser reward in Heaven reserved for those who don't do enough. By contrast, in Lutheran Absolution, the sinner does nothing. He receives by faith alone that which is given by grace alone. It is a voice from Heaven saying, "I forgive you all of your sins."

 

[Matt Black]

That totally contradicts your earlier statement where you say that baptism saves. That is:-

a. Roman Catholic
b. A 'work'
c. Certainly not "by faith alone"

When you're in a hole, stop digging...

There is no sacramentalism in Baptist soteriology - we are saved solely by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[John Gilmore]

Matt Black,

That totally contradicts your earlier statement where you say that baptism saves.

No, that's what Christ says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." That is not papist or a work but it is by faith alone.

There is no sacramentalism in Baptist soteriology - we are saved solely by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice.

I am unfamiliar with the Baptist Union of Great Britian. Have they renounced Pelagianism? Most Baptists in America (e.g., Southern Baptist Convention) are Arminians.

 

[John Gilmore]

koreahog2005,

The received text (Textus Receptus) is a bit different from Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (aleph) in some places.

It is not simply the use of corrupt manuscripts. I have not been able to find out the makeup of NASV translation team. However, for the modern translations that I have investigated, the teams are dominated by Baptists, Reform, and Arminians- the very groups with a vested interest in denying Baptismal grace and infant faith.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
Matt Black,

That totally contradicts your earlier statement where you say that baptism saves.

No, that's what Christ says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." That is not papist or a work but it is by faith alone.

There is no sacramentalism in Baptist soteriology - we are saved solely by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice.

I am unfamiliar with the Baptist Union of Great Britian. Have they renounced Pelagianism? Most Baptists in America (e.g., Southern Baptist Convention) are Arminians.

 

[Matt Black]

Apologies for multiple posts - Internet Explorer playing up

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

John, to answer what I quoted from you:-

1. Show me a newborn who professes belief in Jesus and I will gladly baptise him or her. You still contradict yourself even when interpreting the Lord's words - either salvation is by faith alone in which case baptism has no salvific value and is unnecessary, or it saves in which case salvation is not by faith alone - which is it?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

2. The BUGB website is here:- http://www.baptist.org.uk/default.asp - judge for yourself

Yours in Christ

Matt