Age of Accountability

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells:
Joey says:
&gt; All mankind is born into sin, or do you not believe what the Bible says?
BWS: The Bible doesn't say that. It says "every inclination of his heart is evil from birth" and "through one man sin entered the world". There's a big difference.
BW, who is that “one man” by whom “sin entered the world?” You deny that Adam was real. Then you quote scripture you don’t even believe and then say, “Sorry, I accept no creed but the Bible.” Oh, the futility of arguing with an errantist, because you have no rules.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the problem John. An errantist cannot argue from Scripture, as he does not know which Scriptures are true and which are not. His locus of truth is reason. It begins with a denial of Gen 1-11, then there is denial of original sin, total depravity, the need for salvation and any other biblicla truth which is not appealing, and on and on to ultimate universalism, as I'm OK, you're OK ...

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PackerBacker:
Any takers on this one yet? Just trying to keep this topic alive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The children in question were slaughtered to keep them from growing up and becomming pagans. As they were killed while still innocent, their death was an act of mercy.

 

Thomas,

You said in one sentence what I was planning to take several paragraphs to develop! Thanks for saving me the time! "The Case For Faith" by Lee Strobel, p 113 begins an excellent discussion on this topic. The entire book is an excellent read as is his "The Case For Christ."

[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

could the age of accountabiltybe when a child knows write from wrong , and still chooses to do wrong .or is that just deliberate sin

 

Joey,
Anyone reading your comments alone, would get the idea that PackerBacker is some guy who thinks he is greater than God. I’m some wacko that is standing in judgment of God for being unrighteous. Would you care to take my exact quotes from my previous question and enlighten every one on this thread how you came to your deductions about my so-called God judging God heresy.

From the way you reacted to my question, which you seem to see as my “judgment on God,” it appears you must not talk much to people outside your own group. Have you never been asked by a skeptic or atheist to explain the “Bloody God” of the OT? (Before you get worked up again, the “Bloody God” is not my accusation) If you have spent any time reading the OT you will find far more examples than what I quoted.

I’ve talked with an atheist who has probably read the Bible more times than most Baptists. He would rip apart the shallow evangelical Christian who talks to him only about a loving God (Jn:3:16 etc). He points back to the OT and says the God of the OT is not the same as the God of the NT. He sees God as a bloody butcher in the OT. He wants to know why a loving God could do this to the same children, some on this post are calling innocent. Try and tell him, as others that God was doing these innocent children a big favor by having them hacked up, drowned, or burned in fire. Best of luck to you. By the way, throwing out a quote about “God’s ways not being man’s ways” can be used by every person on this Board for just about every opinion on every topic.

I’m new to this site but I’d have to agree with those catholic guys, on another thread, that some, who can’t answer questions, go off on emotional rages, name-calling, and twisting of words. If you can’t answer the question as posed, please don’t blast away at people you don’t even know.

I do not believe God is unrighteous, have never said it, and was rather surprised to learn of my recent change, based on your accusations. I posed a question, which could lead to two different views or open up others views and discusions. Ever consider I might actually be one who sees God as holy and righteous and Adam’s entire race as unrighteous? Maybe I don’t even hold a position, like on the tithe thread, and am just curious what others think? Perhaps you are right? Ever consider that even if you are right, people will probably miss the truth because of the way you try to get it across.

The old, “Go for it and seek forgiveness later if necessary,” might work with me, but I doubt you’ll get a second chance with many of the people, with real faces, you will encounter. If you want clarification, ask me. It beats taking the “ole foot out of the mouth” later.

Packer Backer

I’ll respond later to a point you made (not concerning your wrong views of my opinion) that I happen to agree with.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:



I don't think these children are in hell. Maybe the ones in Sodom who came out with there parents to do the evil deeds also, because they were probably past the age of accountablity if they were out there. But as for the babies, God just took them on home.
And as for the Amakilties, God wanted these peple destoyed because they were against Him, again as for the babies God just took them on Home.
Was David's child evil? Did it go to hell?
Why would you say that God is unrighteous for taken a soul home to be with Him. God doesn't see death the same way we do. That child of David's was far better off once God took him. Even David seen this for he mourned for the child before it died and then washed his face and ate after the child had died.
I just love the way you judge God. Saying He is not righteous if He does something a certain way. Does He now go with your counseling, does He now heed to you. The Bible says "God's ways are not man's ways."
Just because you don't understand something, I think it is quiet dangerous to judge God and say that He would be unrighteous to do something. I am not saying this to try to support my view, I am saying this because you are putting your views above God's when you say God would be unrighteous if He did anything. God would still be righteous if He sent you, me and everyone else in this world to hell.

God speed.

[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
The children in question were slaughtered to keep them from growing up and becomming pagans. As they were killed while still innocent, their death was an act of mercy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thomas,

As I understand innocent, it means non-guilty. An innocent person is therefore not guilty or deserving of punishment. Help me understand how those who are innocent can deserve being "slaughtered." I also have a hard time seeing why innocent people need mercy. I always thought that only guilty people need mercy. If there is no guilt then there is no need for mercy.

If I follow the train of thought about being "slaughtered to keep them from growing up and becomming pagans," it brings up the question of why God let other nations of "innocent" childen grow up to be "pagans"?

I know you answered briefly, so I'm asking for more clarification.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joey,
Anyone reading your comments alone, would get the idea that PackerBacker is some guy who thinks he is greater than God. I’m some wacko that is standing in judgment of God for being unrighteous. Would you care to take my exact quotes from my previous question and enlighten every one on this thread how you came to your deductions about my so-called God judging God heresy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Packer,
I did not intend for it to sound quiet that way, but if they would read the rest of the posts they would not get that idea. I did not twist your post around either. You gave an ultimatum, that either one believed that God would do this to the unrighteous people or God was unrighteous, which neither is or was true. I merely postsed that way to show you that your ultamatum would only leave those, that believed that God did not send these children to hell, that God was unrighteous. If you will read your post again you will see the ultimatum that you give, which is wrong. I conclude God is unrighteous in all that He does weather I understand it or not. My intentions were not to make you out to sound like an heritic, only that the view that you pointed out is not right.


oh and one other thing, just because your view is brought into question does not mean that I am bashing you. I did not resort to name calling and the such. If you don't like your views called into question, then don't lay them on the table.

God speed.

[ November 18, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As I understand innocent, it means non-guilty. An innocent person is therefore not guilty or deserving of punishment. Help me understand how those who are innocent can deserve being "slaughtered." I also have a hard time seeing why innocent people need mercy. I always thought that only guilty people need mercy. If there is no guilt then there is no need for mercy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not the definition of innocent when pertaining to the people of this world. None is innocent, except Christ. All deserve punishment for all have sined. And even being blood washed and presented blameless and spotless, it is only because the blood covers us and the Father doesn't see us but the blood of His precious Son. Even us as christians the Bible says that all our righteousness is as filthy rags before the Lord. We did and do still now deserve hell and eternal punishment. But Christ payed that cost. Does that make you any less gulity of the sin? No, you were and are gulity of sin, but the difference here is that the penalty has been paid.


God speed.

 

Nice try Joey,

Still waiting for you to enlighten us all on how I said God was unrighteous or that He sent children to hell. I can handle my views being called into question but have a hard time with someone like you accusing me of calling God unrighteous and putting my views over God, when I never said that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:



If you don't like your views called into question, then don't lay them on the table.

God speed.

[ November 18, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:


This is not the definition of innocent when pertaining to the people of this world.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's definition of innocent is not correct. The one Thomas used or the way I understand it?

Everything else you said in that post, I agree with. All your comments seem to agree with my understanding of innocent. It lines up with the fact that there are no innocent, other than Christ.

 

PackerBacker,

I agree with you. You have made some good points and raised some good questions.

 

Wells wrote:
&gt; BW, who is that “one man” by whom “sin entered the world?”

Yourself. Adam represents you and me and everyone who ever lived; and no one is free from personal sin.

&gt; You deny that Adam was real.

BWS: He's not.

&gt; Then you quote scripture you don’t even believe and then say, “Sorry, I accept no creed but the Bible.”

BWS: I don't.

&gt; Oh, the futility of arguing with an errantist,

BWS: I'm not an errantist.

&gt; because you have no rules.

BWS: Spoken like a true legalist. Why are you even a Baptist if everything has to have a rule that you can understand?

 

Chris Temple wrote:
&gt; This is the problem John. An errantist cannot argue from Scripture,

BWS: I'm not an errantist.

&gt; as he does not know which Scriptures are true and which are not.

BWS: Yes, I do. They're all true.

&gt; His locus of truth is reason.

BWS: Your locus of truth is therefore...???

&gt; It begins with a denial of Gen 1-11,

BWS: Which I never gave.

&gt; then there is denial of original sin,

BWS: Which is a false doctrine to the extent that it focuses on a mythical person, but true to the extent that it focuses on our innate inclination to sin.

&gt; total depravity, the need for salvation

BWS: Now you're getting ridiculous.

&gt; and any other biblicla truth which is not appealing,

BWS: Do you think I find my views appealing?

&gt; and on and on to ultimate universalism, as I'm OK, you're OK ...

BWS: You shouldn't talk about me until you learn what I actually believe.

 

BW Smith:
I was assuming that people here actually believed in the Bible, not some modernist, historical-critical view that denies almost everything the bible teaches.

Of course Original Sin is one of the "fundamental" doctrines of the Bible. Like it or not, man, all mankind, is born in sin and UNABLE to "accept" Christ.

I've heard every liberal criticism of the Bible and none of them hold the least value or interest to me.
God has either given you the free gift of grace or He has not. You are either born again or you are not. If not, you CANNOT understand the things of God, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 cor. 2:14).
I bet you wouldn't believe this, but did you know there are people out their that say they are Christian, but don't believe, like Jesus and Paul did, that Adam and Eve were actualy people? Some "Christians" think it is okay for ministers to be homosexual, or that being a homosexual is not a grave disorder and preversion. Imagine that!!!
Some believe that the Bible is not inspired, but full of errors. Some don't believe in the atonement, since no original sin, no need for atonement, no need for Christ to die on the cross. I have actually run into people that claim to be "christian" that think like that. I've often wondered why they don't join the Unitiarian-pagan church instead of claiming to be christian. Oh well, I guess people are free to say they are anything they want, or to be influenced by lost seminary professors etc.

I'm not saying that applies to you, but I have never understood why someone would claim to be christian, but deny all the major doctrines of the christian faith.

Sorry, but I find nothing in scripture to justify the position that a baby is saved because they are babies. I read that ALL have sinned, and unless regenerated by a sovereign, free act of grace by a Sovereign God, they are lost. But then, I don't go on fallen, depraved, sinful, lost man's "reasoning." I go by the word of God. Everytime I read Romans 9 and see that Paul dealt with all of man's feeble attempts to question why God does what he does, I just leave it at that. Let's face it!! Man can do NOTHING to save himself. His salvation depends completely on ANOTHER -- God Alone.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
BW Smith:
I'm not saying that applies to you, but I have never understood why someone would claim to be christian, but deny all the major doctrines of the christian faith.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is because they have not personally encountered the living, Sovereign, All-powerful God, of which Isaiah said when He saw Him high and lifted up, ""Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts." (Isa 6:5) and the beloved Apostle John, whom seeing the glorified Christ "fell at His feet as dead." (Rev 1:17).

To deny His word as literally true is to deny The Word, and call Him a liar, "because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man——and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." (Rom 1:21-23).

 

Want to drop in the coments of a new person, Paul Hadik who just posted on a different thread. Thought it might benifit this thread. Everything below is from Paul.

Following some of the threads in which sola scriptura has been staunchly defended by some I can't help but notice some ironies
(by the way, I hold to the final authority position of Scripture)
1. the age of accountability. There is nothing in Scriptures that teaches this yet many hold to it. One verse from a recovering adulterer/murderer is all we have. How do sola scripturists honestly hold to this idea
(by the way...I have a handicapped brother and have lost a baby daughter so this is no flame on my part. I hope beyone hope both will be with God, but the death of my daughter and the condition of my brother are unmistakable proofs of sin in the world and in their nature...and sin can't be with a holy God)

 

PackerBacker:
I guess you were talking about Paul. Of course, a former murder, etc. But now a born again believer saved by God's grace.
I also find NOTHING in the bible about babies being saved because they are babies. I can only say God gave us his written word and be (At least me) go by that. If I can't fiqure something out I leave it to God. Some day I'll understand.
I don't mean to be harsh, but I have been accused of that because of my stand on this issue.
ALL HAVE inherited sin from our federal representative, Adam. On the other hand, all that Christ died for, inherit His imputed righteousness and are His sheep, and He knows his sheep and will lose NONE that the Father has given him. I leave it at that.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Want to drop in the coments of a new person, Paul Hadik who just posted on a different thread. Thought it might benifit this thread. Everything below is from Paul.
Following some of the threads in which sola scriptura has been staunchly defended by some I can't help but notice some ironies
(by the way, I hold to the final authority position of Scripture)
1. the age of accountability. There is nothing in Scriptures that teaches this yet many hold to it. One verse from a recovering adulterer/murderer is all we have. How do sola scripturists honestly hold to this idea
(by the way...I have a handicapped brother and have lost a baby daughter so this is no flame on my part. I hope beyone hope both will be with God, but the death of my daughter and the condition of my brother are unmistakable proofs of sin in the world and in their nature...and sin can't be with a holy God)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well I sure am glad we have his word on that, now I can just throw out my Bible for I know it all now! (sarcasm)

There may only be one verse of scripture on it, but what are you going to do with that one verse of scripture?
Are we to discredit it because it is only mentioned once?
Tell me then what David meant if it didn't mean that his child would be with the Lord.

God speed.

 

Joey:
David probably mean that his child cannot come to him because the child was dead. He could go where the child was, which was in hades, the abode of the dead. Before Christ died and rose from the dead, all the people went to hades to wait the final judgement. What about the rich man and Lazarus. They were conscious and it appears from that passage of scripture that hades was divided into two sections, one for the faithful and one for the lost. After Jesus rose from the dead and atoned for His people, the New Testament NEVER says a believer goes to hades. He goes to heaven or to hell. A great change has taken place.

That's my understanding of it -- after thinking it through as you would say.
What did you think David meant since no one could go to heaven before the sacrifice of Christ on the cross?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He could go where the child was, which was in hades, the abode of the dead. Before Christ died and rose from the dead, all the people went to hades to wait the final judgement. What about the rich man and Lazarus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes there was a great gulf fixed that those who would pass from hence to thence could not. He could not go to him if the child were in the place of torments neither could the child come to him if he were in Abrahams bosom.

No one could go to heaven until Christ went to the cross but both could go to Abraham's bosom.