The Age of Accountability

Again, that's the "rule", but God can still do whatever he pleases. According to the rule, ...it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment. Tell that to Lazarus.

 

How can an infant have faith in Christ? An infant is not intellectually capable of understanding the gospel, right?

 

John, I would have to agree with you in principle. But I allow for the fact that God can do anything He wishes to do according to His good pleasure. And if that includes mercifully saving an unborn child by any means He wishes, including something that contradicts sola fide, then so be it.

The problem is that I don't know if God does this or not. According to my man-tainted wishful thinking, I would like to assume God saves all aborted unborn children, for example. Whether or not He actually does this is something I cannot say with confidence because scripture (IMO) does not directly address this issue. If it does, I don't see it yet.

All I can say is that if God, by His mercy, saves every unborn child (or any infant/child/adult who is otherwise impaired) then praise God. If God only saves the elect among this group, then praise God. If God saves none of them, then praise God. There is one thing of which I can be 100% certain. Wherever I disagree with God on issues like this, God is always right and I am always wrong, and it would be insanely arrogant for me to think otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]To say God that saves without means is to deny the nature of God as revealed in His Word. Man is justified by faith alone through the Word alone. How that Word comes to man and how the Holy Spirit works faith is sometimes a mystery. However, I would not give comfort to a non-Christian couple who kept the Word of God from their dead child.

 

John, are you saying that an unborn child or a one-month-old infant is capable of understanding the gospel?

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here. If God does save an aborted child who is incapable of faith at the time of death, then God obviously used means that we do not yet comprehend.

Indeed, I don't even know if an unborn child is, in fact, incapable of faith. It is certainly counterintuitive to me that an unbord child can receive the Word and faith. But then it is also counterintuitive to me that John the Baptist would jump for joy in the womb. God constantly does things that are counterintuitive to man, so it is arrogant to assume one thing or another based on what we think we know.

That's one of my points.

Another is that God does as He pleases, even if we think what God is doing contradicts how we perceive His nature from scripture. Like I pointed out above, it is appointed for man to die once, but Lazarus died twice, and Enoch didn't die at all. If God makes exceptions to His "rules" according to His good pleasure, who are we to argue?

 

It's true that people can be set apart for the Lord's work while still in the womb: Judges 16:17; Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15; Isaiah 49:1, 5. It's also true that John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit while in the womb (Luke 1:15) and leaped in the womb (Luke 1:41) for joy (Luke 1:44). It seems like quite an intellectual leap, however, for us to believe that all unborn babies and young infants can intellectually understand the gospel and surrender their lives to Christ in faith and repentance. I don't see any biblical evidence for that. The Bible speaks of a time when children do not know enough to refuse evil and choose good (Isaiah 7:15-16). Well, it's bedtime in South Korea. I'll check this thread tomorrow morning.

 

It is an insurmountable intellectual leap, IMO! (Although I must point out that the truth the unborn baby must grasp is spiritually discerned, not intellectually discerned.)

But the exceptions you named are some reasons why I can't commit to a firm opinion on the subject. I have my wishful thinking that God will save all unborn children, but that wishful thinking is meaningless.

It would be nice if there were some scripture that came right out and said what God does in these cases, but I know of no such scripture.

My bottom line is that, when it comes to the unborn, I cannot be certain whether God saves the elect only, all, or none. But I know this: The truth in this matter doesn't depend on what I understand - it depends on God's pleasure.

 

No! Even Albert Einstein would be incapable of understanding the gospel. No man no matter how intelligent can believe in Christ Jesus or come to Him. The Holy Spirit calls the unborn, infants, and adults to faith through the Word. Not of human intelligence less any man should boast.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here. </font>[/QUOTE]Scripture teaches "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16 "For after that in wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Cor. 1: 21 God acts according to His promises. He will bring about what He has promised in exactly the manner He has promised.

 

John, I agree with you that the gospel cannot be received apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, but I also think there is an intellectual component involved. Let me give you some examples:

Acts 18:4 -- "And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks."

Acts 19:8 -- "And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God."

Acts 26:28-29 -- "And Agrippa replied to Paul, 'In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.' And Paul said, 'I would to God, that whether in a short time or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these chains."

2 Corinthians 5:11 -- "Therefore knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences."

Notice the words "reasoning" and "persuading" in the above passages. We cannot reason with and persuade unless the intellectual component is involved.

 

I'll just repeat what I said over in the other thread, which koreahog touched on:

The problem in all of this, is that there are two biblical definitions of "sin"; one building upon the other, that are being confused. The basic legal definition is "transgression of the Law" (1 John 3:4). This is what the Calvinists (and Lutherans) focus on. So looking at it that way, one after pointing to the scriptures showing babies are born in sin, says "that baby covets something that is not his. He has tantrums. He cries deceptively, often. So he has 'broken the Law', and is condemned as a sinner!" To them, since they were born with the nature, they do things that are considered "sin" for adults, and they have the condition; they do the acts; therefore they are judged/charged as sinners (and therefore elected and reprobated like sinners), and if you don't say God holds them "responsible" like adults, you have denied sin. But the other definition, which goes beneath the first, is "to him who knows to do good but does it not; to him it is sin" (James 4:17). Related to that is "whatever is not of faith is sin" (Rom.14:23-- e.g. if you are not sure it is right). Then there is Paul's discussions in Romans about how "by the Law is the knowledge of sin" (4:20), "where there is no law, there is no transgression" (5:15). People are looking at legal guilt only, but the Gospel teaches that God is not operating on Law (in which no one could ever be saved). He judges by conscientious guilt. Legally they are sinners, so that the universality of sin is not denied. Conscientiously, they are not charged with sin yet, and where there is no charged sin, there is no reason for God to condemn them. Babies cannot understand "sin", "repentance", or "faith" (even the adult person who has never heard the Gospel has a conscience and knows right and wrong), and of course, for the unborn this is altogether moot. If elect & nonelect extends to the infants and unborn, then you have the issue of salvation without faith. But that is actually a debate among the different types Calvinists themselves; both accusing each other of being unscriptural, as we see here. So yes, they are sinners, whose sins need to be paid for and covered, legally, but in an infant or unborn state, they do not have the knowledge that brings judgment. They do not "know to do right". They cannot have "faith".
Remember, He and only He knows when a person knows enough to be held accountable for sin.

 

If "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God", then that implies that in hearing, one also understands.

If someone preaches the gospel in Swahili while I am in the same room, I may perceive that they are making sounds, but I do not "hear" them in this sense.

An infant does not speak or understand the language of his parents well enough to come when called, let alone understand ideas like sin, atonement, and regeneration. So he cannot "hear" the way the scripture means. So he can't have faith, and is incapable of responding to the gospel. But I can't for one second believe that my God would permit that soul to go to hell if he should die for any reason.

As to the logic behind why that would be true, (the child is elect from the beginning since God knew he would die as an infant, or because God has a special designation for those who are incapable of understanding and responding) I do not know. But the result is the same - the child is in heaven.

I know this - while it may be different for every person - there comes a time when a child knows right from wrong and can understand the gospel when it is reduced to its simplest terms. And it can be very early. So teach them early, since you don't know when the line has been crossed. Evangelism for children is serious business.

 

I agree the intellectual component is involved. Man's intellect is in the service of Satan and must be overcome by the preacher. The unborn and infants simply hear the word and believe the word.

 

John, it sounds like you are putting adults and infants into two different categories. You said the adult's intellect must be overcome. Obviously, the infant cannot intellectually comprehend the gospel. People who die before reaching the age of accountability are in a different category than those who live past the age of accountability.

 

koreahog2005,

Adults and infants are not in a different category as far as their total depravity, their complete resistance to the gospel, and their total inability to contribute in any way to their own redemption. However, adults, unlike infants, must be brought to a knowledge of their sins. The devil has taught them all too well. Only after adults have despaired of everything that the devil has taught them to trust in are they prepared to receive the grace of God.

 

John, I agree with you that adults, unlike infants, must be brought to a knowledge of their sins. If infants do not have to be brought to a knowledge of their sins, then doesn’t that imply that infants do not have to repent of those sins in order to be saved? Adults must surrender their lives in repentance and faith, and infants who die in infancy are incapable of surrendering their lives in repentance and faith.

 

koreahog2005,

Those who believe that they must first surrender their lives before they can be saved have not despaired of everything that the devil has taught them to trust in. Faith alone justifies not our work of surrendering our lives. Surrendering our lives is a fruit of faith.

Those infants who have been regenerated and given faith show the fruits of faith although in much weakness because they remain simultaneously saints and sinners. Even though they continue to sin without a knowledge of their sins, they are saved by the righteousness of Christ which has been imputed to them by faith alone.

 

Keep in mind that when it says hearing [comes by] the word of God, the Greek for "word" is not "logos" (as in written Word of God). It is "rhema", which means uttered word of God. So it's saying "hearing [comes by] the utterance or spoken word of God, as in "let there be light".

In my not-so-humble opinion, this passage is saying, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes when God says so". In other words, hearing (understanding what is heard, as in having ears to hear) is something that only occurs when God makes it happen. It is not within the natural ability of man to hear. If it were, the Bible wouldn't keep saying "those who have ears to hear".

See, for example, Deut 29:4 Yet the LORD has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day.

 

John, I respectfully disagree with you about what constitutes saving faith. The word for “faith” (“pistis”) as a verb is “believe” (“pisteuo”). Simply put, faith includes intellectual belief in Jesus, and infants are incapable of intellectual belief in Jesus. We can say that true, saving faith is more than intellectual belief, but it includes intellectual belief.

The most recent Southern Baptist confession of faith, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, defines saving faith as follows:

Some Scripture passages follow that should impact the definition of true faith:

Romans 10:9 – “That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.”

Obviously, infants are incapable of understanding the resurrection. They are incapable of believing in their hearts that God raised Him from the dead. They are incapable of confessing Jesus as their Lord.

Romans 10:14 – “How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?”

Infants are incapable of believing in Him. They are incapable of hearing about him from a preacher.

Hebrews 11:6 – “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”

Infants are incapable of believing that “He is,” and they are incapable of believing that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

James 2:17 – “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.”

True, saving faith is always evidenced by good works. An unborn child or young infant is incapable of good works.

Two more relevant Scripture passages for infants:

Luke 14:33 – “So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.”

Matthew 28:19-20 – “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

True disciples are willing to surrender everything to Jesus. Only true disciples should be baptized. True disciples should be taught. Infants are incapable of being willing to surrender everything to Jesus. Unborn children and young infants are incapable of learning to observe all that Jesus commanded. Unborn children are incapable of baptism, and infants should not be baptized.

 

Npetreley, you said the following:

Actually, “rhema” can refer to the word in preaching. It is used to refer to preaching in Acts 2:14, 5:20, and 10:44. As you say, only God can make spiritual understanding happen, but one must also intellectually understand the word that is preached. If a person is deaf, perhaps he can read it. If a person is both blind and deaf, perhaps he can use braille. The point is, the person must intellectually understand the word, and infants are incapable of doing so.

One can choose to reject Jesus and not receive His word (“rhema” in John 12:48); that person will be judged at the last day. A non-Christian can fall away from a special conviction event after tasting the word of God (“rhema” in Hebrews 6:5-6). An unborn child or young infant is incapable of receiving His word or tasting His word.