# The Age of Accountability



## FrozenChosen (Mar 10, 2004)

This is obviously a hot topic for us to talk about. I'd wager that most of the people on this board do not believe it (if there any that are, please give your points, I'm interested).

I'm listening to some old online sermons from my pastor in which he says &quot;The age of accountability is horribly based because it implies justification by death.&quot;

Anyways, I'd just like to hear, or read rather, some discussion on this idea. Also, if possible, could someone hook me up with some links of solid writings on the topic (from either view, although I'm pretty sure my viewpoint won't change)? Thanks!


----------



## raderag (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:d817c023bf][i:d817c023bf]Originally posted by FrozenChosen[/i:d817c023bf]
This is obviously a hot topic for us to talk about. I'd wager that most of the people on this board do not believe it (if there any that are, please give your points, I'm interested).

I'm listening to some old online sermons from my pastor in which he says &quot;The age of accountability is horribly based because it implies justification by death.&quot;

Anyways, I'd just like to hear, or read rather, some discussion on this idea. Also, if possible, could someone hook me up with some links of solid writings on the topic (from either view, although I'm pretty sure my viewpoint won't change)? Thanks! [/quote:d817c023bf]

I posted this somewhre else:

Has anyone considered here that the doctrine of Age of
accountability and imputation of Christ's righteousness are mutually
exclusive? In other words, believing one logically excludes the
other.

The reason for this is the idea is in the federal headship of Adam
and Christ; in that we are imputed Adam's sin, and thus Christ's
righteousness if saved. The doctrine of imputation teaches that we
are actually guilty of Adam's sin at birth and actually innocent by
Christ's righteousness at rebirth:

Death in Adam, Life in Christ
(1) 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and
death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all
sinned-- 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not
imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam
to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the
likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was
to come. 15But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the
one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift
by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16And
the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For
the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation,
but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in
justification. 17For if by the one man's offense death reigned
through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and
of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One,
Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men,
resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act
the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by
one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
20Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where
sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in
death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal
life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The age of accountability teaches that we are innocent because we are
young, but David said he was &quot;brought forth in sin&quot;. To teach that
any human being is innocent without Christ or that God considers any
innocent without the shedding of blood is to both deny the necessity
of the atonement (many Arminians have) and God's perfect and just
righteousness.

If we are innocent we were are born, then we were not imputed Adam's
sin, only his nature was given to us. If you read how Paul compares
Adam to Christ in this passage you will see that rejecting Adam's
imputation requires rejecting Christ's imputation. The logical
conclusion of this is that we are justified by our infused or actual
righteousness rather than being justified by Christ's perfect
righteousness by faith alone.

In other words, believing in the age of accountability necessitates
denying justification by faith alone.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Mar 10, 2004)

Hey Brett,

That's really solid stuff! Thanks brother!


----------



## staythecourse (Mar 10, 2004)

To: Raderag

Be careful in your reply here then. What about infant death?


----------



## raderag (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:55ad99b84c][i:55ad99b84c]Originally posted by staythecourse[/i:55ad99b84c]
To: Raderag

Be careful in your reply here then. What about infant death? [/quote:55ad99b84c]

That is a difficult issue, and I will defer to many of the better reformed thinkers that have answered this, but I stand by the fact that every human being must be covered by the blood of Christ to be considered inocent and have salvation.

In short, I think that a good grasp on God's justice and soveigntry can give all much comfort. I don't know the answer, but I know it is just.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 10, 2004)

If infants are born in Adam (which they are) and they are fallen in Him (which they are) then they are already on their way to hell before they ever start sinning outwardly. They come forth fromt he womb speakinbg lies. In sin they are concieved. 

Infants are no less liable to hell than any other in the scheme of God's presdetinating plan. That is why Paul's argument on Election moves to two full-blooded Jews (Jacob and Esau) and that God chose one over the other not based on anything they have done, even before they were born, that His purpose in election may stand.

That is why the confessions read, &quot;Elect infants dying in infancy...&quot; go to heaven.

The Age of Accountability is a lie - its Arminianism.

The Age of Discretion is a better doctrine to follow. It simply states that at a certain time, the child will begin to display knowledge of the Gospel. This the PARENT discerns and may be different for each of their children. Thus they discern, as they are able, at what age the children seemed to understand faith.


----------



## raderag (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:442465f528][i:442465f528]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:442465f528]
If infants are born in Adam (which they are) and they are fallen in Him (which they are) then they are already on their way to hell before they ever start sinning outwardly. They come forth fromt he womb speakinbg lies. In sin they are concieved. 

Infants are no less liable to hell than any other in the scheme of God's presdetinating plan. That is why Paul's argument on Election moves to two full-blooded Jews (Jacob and Esau) and that God chose one over the other not based on anything they have done, even before they were born, that His purpose in election may stand.

That is why the confessions read, &quot;Elect infants dying in infancy...&quot; go to heaven.

The Age of Accountability is a lie - its Arminianism.

The Age of Discretion is a better doctrine to follow. It simply states that at a certain time, the child will begin to display knowledge of the Gospel. This the PARENT discerns and may be different for each of their children. Thus they discern, as they are able, at what age the children seemed to understand faith. [/quote:442465f528]

Do you think it is possible that infants of non-believers can be covered by the Blood of Christ? I know this is specuation, but I don't know how to answer this.


----------



## raderag (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:f5b49df0ec][i:f5b49df0ec]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:f5b49df0ec]
[quote:f5b49df0ec][i:f5b49df0ec]Originally posted by raderag[/i:f5b49df0ec]
[quote:f5b49df0ec][i:f5b49df0ec]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:f5b49df0ec]
If infants are born in Adam (which they are) and they are fallen in Him (which they are) then they are already on their way to hell before they ever start sinning outwardly. They come forth fromt he womb speakinbg lies. In sin they are concieved. 

Infants are no less liable to hell than any other in the scheme of God's presdetinating plan. That is why Paul's argument on Election moves to two full-blooded Jews (Jacob and Esau) and that God chose one over the other not based on anything they have done, even before they were born, that His purpose in election may stand.

That is why the confessions read, &quot;Elect infants dying in infancy...&quot; go to heaven.

The Age of Accountability is a lie - its Arminianism.

The Age of Discretion is a better doctrine to follow. It simply states that at a certain time, the child will begin to display knowledge of the Gospel. This the PARENT discerns and may be different for each of their children. Thus they discern, as they are able, at what age the children seemed to understand faith. [/quote:f5b49df0ec]

Do you think it is possible that infants of non-believers can be covered by the Blood of Christ? I know this is specuation, but I don't know how to answer this. [/quote:f5b49df0ec]

if they are elect [/quote:f5b49df0ec]

I agree of course, but the question is should we say that infants of non-Christians can be elect, or does the Bible teach against this?

I tend to lean towards the fact that it is possible, but don't ussually speculate. Are there any good arguments for it not being possible?


----------



## pastorway (Mar 10, 2004)

We have discussed this at length, but must remember that election is unconditional. You are not elected to salvation because of who your parents are! Neither then would you be passed over because of who your parents are. It is an unconditional choice of God's grace. That is what is proved by studying Jacob and Esau in Romans 9.

If you are elect, Christ died for you and you will be saved, no matter when you die!

Phillip


----------



## raderag (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:3fd45b2ea4][i:3fd45b2ea4]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:3fd45b2ea4]
We have discussed this at length, but must remember that election is unconditional. You are not elected to salvation because of who your parents are! Neither then would you be passed over because of who your parents are. It is an unconditional choice of God's grace. That is what is proved by studying Jacob and Esau in Romans 9.

If you are elect, Christ died for you and you will be saved, no matter when you die!

Phillip [/quote:3fd45b2ea4]

Unconditional, yes, but it also is causational to faith. To deny this is hyper-Calvinism. I don't know what implications this has on infant salvation, but it seems to me that those outside the covenant should not be given hope, including infants.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 10, 2004)

Then why do we preach the gospel to people who were born into lost families? Your view would have us preface our preaching by asking, &quot;Are you parents saved?&quot; If not then we would not be able to give them any hope......that [i:bc3e6127ca]is[/i:bc3e6127ca] hyper-calvinistic.

The time of death does not influence God's choice for salvation. Neither does parentage. Many of us on the forum are from families that are lost. Why did God save us since we were not brought up in &quot;covenant families&quot;? 

You cannot limit salvation to families that are already saved, as if to say that election is determined by physical lineage.

Phillip

[Edited on 3-10-04 by pastorway]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 10, 2004)

raderag - 

Remember, there were many people outside the covenant that were in fact elected by God.

Abraham was a Gentile.

Nineveh in Jonahs' time (God even said that there were many who did not know their left hand from their right hand (a Hebraism concerning &quot;children and infants&quot that he should care for.) Jonah 4:11, &quot;&quot;And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand 
persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left -- and much livestock?&quot;

Remember, the division in Genesis 3:15 is between the &quot;seed of the serpent&quot; (i.e. those reprobate) and the seed of the woman (those in Christ).

This does not exclude covenant promises, but rather ratifies them.

Nineveh should have as much of a plea to repent and believe the promises of God, i.e. the covenant in Christ, as anyone else.

That does not mean that pagan nations have been as blessed by God as those in covenant with Him. Those children in covenant with God in a Christian home are in fact more blessed than those in Zimbabwe worshipping the &quot;god of the river.&quot; 

There is though much warrant to press the student of the Bible to say that children in covenant have promises to eternal life, where children not in covenant do not. Jonah, for instacne, was sent with a message to Nineveh, otherwise they WOULD HAVE perished. Within the covenant context the blessings take place. Outside of that context, there is no blessing, just Law - by conscience and natural revelation to condemn them.


----------



## raderag (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:f9bb88cb2d][i:f9bb88cb2d]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:f9bb88cb2d]
Then why do we preach the gospel to people who were born into lost families? 

The time of death does not influence God's choice for salvation. Neither does parentage.

Many of us on the forum are from families that are lost. Why did God save us since we were not brought up in &quot;covenant families&quot;? 

You cannot limit salvation to families that are already saved, like election is determined by physical lineage.

Phillip [/quote:f9bb88cb2d]

I think we are misunderstanding each other. Do we agree that faith is a necessary outcome of regeneration for those who could believe?

I would imagine so. Anyway, I see what you are saying, but it is clear that those born into a family of believers are set appart in a special way. In fact, they are sanctified and Holy. This isn't said of those not born into believers. 

Anyway, I don't think I would ever argue that infants in non-Christian households cannot be saved (that is the question I was posting), but it is a stretch to suggest that they might be. I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that infants of Christians probabaly are.

Anyway, I am not really sure.


----------



## raderag (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:afbaf584fc][i:afbaf584fc]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:afbaf584fc]
raderag - 

Remember, there were many people outside the covenant that were in fact elected by God.

Abraham was a Gentile.

Nineveh in Jonahs' time (God even said that there were many who did not know their left hand from their right hand (a Hebraism concerning &quot;children and infants&quot that he should care for.) Jonah 4:11, &quot;&quot;And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand 
persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left -- and much livestock?&quot;

Remember, the division in Genesis 3:15 is between the &quot;seed of the serpent&quot; (i.e. those reprobate) and the seed of the woman (those in Christ).

This does not exclude covenant promises, but rather ratifies them.

Nineveh should have as much of a plea to repent and believe the promises of God, i.e. the covenant in Christ, as anyone else.

That does not mean that pagan nations have been as blessed by God as those in covenant with Him. Those children in covenant with God in a Christian home are in fact more blessed than those in Zimbabwe worshipping the &quot;god of the river.&quot; 

There is though much warrant to press the student of the Bible to say that children in covenant have promises to eternal life, where children not in covenant do not. Jonah, for instacne, was sent with a message to Nineveh, otherwise they WOULD HAVE perished. Within the covenant context the blessings take place. Outside of that context, there is no blessing, just Law - by conscience and natural revelation to condemn them. [/quote:afbaf584fc]

Ok, that makes more sense.


----------



## staythecourse (Mar 10, 2004)

I appreciated the responses - that hard fact however much I do not like it is that my son/daughter might die before what I believe is a chance to have faith ... I still must bow the knee and say &quot;HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is the LORD God Almighty. Comfort me Master.&quot; How could Abraham turn off his emotions when he loved Ishmael, too. He was a great truster in God.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 10, 2004)

Faith is a gift from God given to His elect. Where in the Bible would we ever be led to believe that there is an age limit on who God will give faith to ro elect?

And no, it is not a stretch to think that God can and will save infants of unbelievers. That is what Grace is all about. We do not merit grace, that is why it is called grace. And we were all sinners when God saved us, no matter who our parents are. We were all &quot;children of wrath&quot; before we were redeemed (Eph 2:1-2).

Let us not think that the child of a believer has a better chance at grace, or we make a mockery of grace.

Phillip


----------



## raderag (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:8f279c77c3][i:8f279c77c3]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:8f279c77c3]
Faith is a gift from God given to His elect. Where in the Bible would we ever be led to believe that there is an age limit on who God will give faith to ro elect?
[/quote:8f279c77c3]

&quot;faith comes from hearing&quot; I don't believe that one can have faith without knowing. Otherwise, we might as well say anybody could be saved appart from their apparent faith. That would be hyper-Calvinism.

[quote:8f279c77c3]
And no, it is not a stretch to think that God can and will save infants of unbelievers. That is what Grace is all about. We do not merit grace, that is why it is called grace. And we were all sinners when God saved us, no matter who our parents are. We were all &quot;children of wrath&quot; before we were redeemed (Eph 2:1-2).
[/quote:8f279c77c3]

I did not think I was minimizing Grace.

[quote:8f279c77c3]
Let us not think that the child of a believer has a better chance at grace, or we make a mockery of grace.

Phillip [/quote:8f279c77c3]

Not at all. By that logic, saying that someone who has a better chance of hearing the Gospel has a better change of being saved would &quot;make a mockery out of Grace. It is not so since the means of Grace, in this case the Word, is more available. I think this is true in a Christian home also. It is self-evident that those in a Christian home are more likely to be Christians. That is one of the points of having a Christian home in the first place.

Are believers to assume their children are heathens just like all the rest in the world, or are they set appart?


----------



## pastorway (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:3e22101dc2] I don't believe that one can have faith without knowing. Otherwise, we might as well say anybody could be saved appart from their apparent faith. [/quote:3e22101dc2]

Then you do not believe that any unborn child or infant or mentally disabled person can be saved?

If faith is a gift, God can give it to whomever He choses.

Phillip

PS - this position is not anywhere near to hyper-Calvinism. The hyper-calvinist would say that God gsaves the elect whether or not they believe. To them. faith is not required!

[Edited on 3-10-04 by pastorway]


----------



## cupotea (Mar 10, 2004)

Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. I believe that for anyone to get into heaven (and this would include a fetus as well as an infant) he must be born again.

While we may not -- do not -- understand the ministrations of the Holy Spirit, it is not out of the realm of impossibility for him to regenerate a fetus, infant, or mentally incapacitated person. John the Baptist leaped for joy while still in the womb. 

I believe that all infants are elect (although I do not preach that, it being merely an opinion). Romans7:9,10 indicate that the knowledge of sin comes with the knowledge of the law. Romans 5:13 says that where there is no law, sin is not imputed. 

The fact that we are born sinners does in no way preclude God from saving infants.

The &quot;Age of Accountablility&quot; is a human invention. If it was true, the greatest good we could do to our children would be to kill them the day before they reach it. 

~~~~~

If faith comes by hearing does that mean the deaf cannot be saved? :smilegrin:


----------



## Bryan (Mar 10, 2004)

What about this:

The only example of any child dying in the Bible and the Bible saying something about it is the death of David's son. 

2Sa 12:23 But now that the child is dead there is no reason for me to go without food; am I able to make him come back to life? I will go to him, but he will never come back to me. 

I do believe that David is referring to going to be with his son in heaven. 

There are other passages that show God dealing differently with those of a younger age:

Num 14:29 Your dead bodies will be stretched out in this waste land; and of all your number, all those of twenty years old and over who have been crying out against me, 

Deu 1:39 And your little ones, who, you said, would come into strange hands, your children, who now have no knowledge of good or evil, they will go into that land, and to them I will give it and it will be theirs. 

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. 

These verses set a precedent in my opinion for God's dealing with people who do not know what good and evil is. Notice I said good and evil, not those who have not heard of God or not but those who are unable to understand the difference between right and wrong. 

Now there is no doubt that a child is born with a sin nature. I have often heard the comment that your don't need to teach a child how to sin. Does a sin nature however mean that we are held responsible for Adam's sin? I think that Deut 24:16 makes it clear that they will not be. So no sin to punish the child has been made, only the inherit nature to sin has been passed down. So what would God be punishing in Hell? The inheritered sin nature of the child?

Now I wish to be clear that I do not hold to this form of AoA because it seems right in my estimation for God to save those who do not know the differtence between right and wrong. God is soverign, if he was not to save those who have reached the age of accoutability I will worship God becasue He is just in doing what He does although I do not understand it, if He does save those who reach the age then I worship Him for His grace. I believe what I do becasue that is what I read in the bible, not becasue of presuppositions on what God should do. God will elect those to heaven by His good pleasure, I simply see in scripture that often He has differed in how He delt with children of parents under a Covenant with Him.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## raderag (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:56f72d92dc][i:56f72d92dc]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:56f72d92dc]
[quote:56f72d92dc] I don't believe that one can have faith without knowing. Otherwise, we might as well say anybody could be saved appart from their apparent faith. [/quote:56f72d92dc]

Then you do not believe that any unborn child or infant or mentally disabled person can be saved?

If faith is a gift, God can give it to whomever He choses.

Phillip

PS - and I am not a hyper-Calvinist! My position is not anywhere near to hyper-Calvinism. [/quote:56f72d92dc]

Phillip, I was not saying that you were a hyper-Calvinist, but that saying that someone who is able to believe and doesn't could be saved is hyper-Calvinist. I didn't even suggest you believed this, but rather left it as an alternative to what I was saying. 

Anyway, I am not going to get into semantics as these terms are pretty obvious. Faith is believing on Jesus Christ's work on the Cross for salvation. 

I don't know the answer for someone who couldn't believe, but I do know that someone who is able [b:56f72d92dc]must[/b:56f72d92dc] hear the Gospel to be saved (Romans 10). To say that God gives faith appart from the Gospel IS hyper-Calvinism. I didn't say you said this, but it seemed the only alternative.

I don't claim to know the answer for someone who couldn't believe, and that is why I posed this question. Perhaps, they are covered by the blood without faith? Perhaps that is the inclusivist heresy, I don't know.

I know this:

Romans 8:30Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

I also know that all mankind need Christ Blood.

Anyway, please don't take anything as an ad-hominem. I didn't mean it that way.

Maybe sometime we could grab lunch or something. I'm just down the street from you.


----------



## raderag (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:1f5db80182][i:1f5db80182]Originally posted by ss385tm[/i:1f5db80182]
Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. I believe that for anyone to get into heaven (and this would include a fetus as well as an infant) he must be born again.

While we may not -- do not -- understand the ministrations of the Holy Spirit, it is not out of the realm of impossibility for him to regenerate a fetus, infant, or mentally incapacitated person. John the Baptist leaped for joy while still in the womb. 

I believe that all infants are elect (although I do not preach that, it being merely an opinion). Romans7:9,10 indicate that the knowledge of sin comes with the knowledge of the law. Romans 5:13 says that where there is no law, sin is not imputed. 

The fact that we are born sinners does in no way preclude God from saving infants.

The &quot;Age of Accountablility&quot; is a human invention. If it was true, the greatest good we could do to our children would be to kill them the day before they reach it. 

~~~~~

If faith comes by hearing does that mean the deaf cannot be saved? :smilegrin: [/quote:1f5db80182]

I think that is a good explanation.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 10, 2004)

No problem...I just wanted to be sure no one was thinking that infants and those who cannot mentally understand the gospel cannot then be saved. God is capable by His grace of overcoming any &quot;obstacle&quot; to faith, otherwise NONE of us would be saved! 

When we were regenerated, we were all dead in sin, incapable of even desiring to come to Christ. But God gave us new life and repentance and faith, applying the blood of Christ and His righteounsess to us so that we might be saved.

Since He proves that salvation is a mater of raising the dead so to speak, then surely it is not to hard for Him to give faith to those who have died in the womb or shortly after birth. 

And yes, let's get together sometime! email me

Phillip


----------



## raderag (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:ba11e5f269][i:ba11e5f269]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:ba11e5f269]
No problem...I just wanted to be sure no one was thinking that infants and those who cannot mentally understand the gospel cannot then be saved. God is capable by His grace of overcoming any &quot;obstacle&quot; to faith, otherwise NONE of us would be saved! 

When we were regenerated, we were all dead in sin, incapable of even desiring to come to Christ. But God gave us new life and repentance and faith, applying the blood of Christ and His righteounsess to us so that we might be saved.

Since He proves that salvation is a mater of raising the dead so to speak, then surely it is not to hard for Him to give faith to those who have died in the womb or shortly after birth. 

And yes, let's get together sometime! email me

Phillip [/quote:ba11e5f269]

Agreed.
I think this is one of the hardest things for any systematic to answer.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Mar 11, 2004)

Hey all,

I just want to thank you all for your responses to this thread, it really has helped me out a lot with this issue in terms of being able to explain biblically why I don't believe in it.


----------



## Galahad (Mar 11, 2004)

I tried to post this earlier, but my computer kept freezing up.

Bryon, you posted several verses that apply to children inside the covenant community, how exactly would you apply those verses (or others) to those outside the covenant community? Specifically, how would 1 Cor. 7:12-14 apply?

Also, what about the city of Sodom and the cities of Canaan - both came under the wrath of God for their wickedness and all the inhabitants (including children) were destroyed. Abraham asked God to spare Sodom for the sake of 10 righteous people and there weren't even ten in the city. If a child is elect, then they are righteous through grace in His sight. 

I would argue that we have two specific instances (and there are others) where God's wrath was revealed upon children and infants - so on some level, there are some infants deserving God's wrath, right?

Thanks, 
Jeffrey Brannen
Covenant Pres. (PCA)
Little Rock, AR


----------



## Bryan (Mar 12, 2004)

Good questions, and I don't really have answers for you 

Yes, from those two examples it is clear that God does punish children in some instances and in some instances He does not. 

How was 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 apply? I'm not sure. You are correct I believe in all the instances I posted those would have been children of the Covenant, considered to be holy. Is it just then, that special attnetion is paid by God to children who are in Covenant with Him? Could be. Like I tried to make clear in my first post I am unsure of this issue, but I do see many verses showing God's dealing with children to be different.

To me however it's really not that big of an issue. God elects by his own pleasure who He will save. Be it an infant I rejoice, be it an adult I rejoce. He condemms an infant, I rejoy becasue God is just, He condems an adult I rejoice becasue he is just. 

Bryan
SDG


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Mar 12, 2004)

[quote:1474f000f1][i:1474f000f1]Originally posted by Galahad[/i:1474f000f1]

I would argue that we have two specific instances (and there are others) where God's wrath was revealed upon children and infants - so on some level, there are some infants deserving God's wrath, right?

[/quote:1474f000f1]

I am sure there were plenty of children and infants during the Flood. I wonder how the evangelicals handle that one?


oops, I forgot, they have the age of accountability lie to make them feel better about it.

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]


----------



## Galahad (Mar 12, 2004)

Wild Boar,

I was sorta thinking of the 10th plague in Egypt... Yeah, but I actually encountered a man who believed that the flood didn't actually happen BECAUSE God wouldn't destroy children.

Jeffrey Brannen


----------



## pastorway (Mar 13, 2004)

Elect does not automatically equal righteous. The elect person must still be justified in time! That is when they are declared righteous.

As for children, in Psalm 106 God refers to young children sacrificed to Baal as &quot;innocent.&quot;

Phillip


----------

