What Changed?

[Iconoclast]

Icon, with all due respect, brother, you can keep repeating the Johanine passages until the cows come up , but none of them speak to the destiny of non-adults. In fact, the entire bible is written to people of the age of accountability since readers everywhere are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel! Infants, babies and small children are not capable of grasping these spiritual concepts -- not capable of understanding what it means to repent, believe, obey an invisible God, etc. When Jesus addressed Nicodemus, was he an an adult or an infant, baby or child? How are the sons of men justified? Is it not by faith!? Explain to me how a little baby is capable of believing the gospel? Even with Rom 8:29-30, one would have to assume that the very young or mentally incompetent are included in that passage.

Secondly, the "age of accountability" (or adulthood) clearly is implied. Avail yourself of a concordance and plug in the phrases "twenty years" and "twenty years old". the former show up in my NIV 41 times and for the latter 30 times . And then after you plug in those phrase, start to read those passages. Did you know, for example, that only the Israelities who were UNDER 20 years old were permitted into the promised Land (Num 14:29), because God did not allow virtually any of the first generation out of Egypt to enter due to their rebellious hearts? Did you know that God commanded that no one under 20 years old was to be conscripted into the army? Clearly, God drew the line between adulthood and younger at 20 years old. And even Natural Revelation (reality as we all know it to be in this world) pretty much agrees with God's age assessment since most of the world's governments set very similar guidelines. Even our judicial system recognizes, as God did, levels of accountability. Some children who commit crimes as charged as minors (or juveniles) while others are tried as adults, etc.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "innocent" human beings -- whether they be adults or tiny infants! All are guilty of sin since God imputed Adam's sin upon all. One does not have to actually commit a personal sin to be found guilty of sin! Therefore, this is a huge assumption that you make that God just acquits the guilty-by-imputation; for He would not be unjust if he condemned infants, babies and young children. God is not morally obligated to save ANYONE, including the newborn!

So...to the best of my knowledge there are only two truly relevant passages in scripture with respect to the "underage": Mat 18:14 and 2Sam 12:23. And both are these are pretty strong in terms of how God very likely deals with the "underage" when they die. After all, how could David be so confident that he would see his deceased baby after he died!? And there's good reason to believe that the "little ones" in Mat 18 is used as a double entendre (i.e. used to refer literally to small children and spiritually to adults). Jesus clearly said of both, with a small child in his lap, that his Father is not willing that any of these "little ones" should perish! Therefore, these are two passages that one can truly hang their hat on without performing feats of mental gymnastics or eiesegesis. No assumptions need to be brought to bear upon either of these texts, which is certainly not the case with any of your cites -- all of which are non seqiturs.

Hello Rufus, I am glad we can interact on messageboards like this one. I offered confessional statements that you cannot improve upon...What Do I mean?
1] God is perfect

2] Biblical election has already taken place before the world was created.

[ you did not comment on this Rufus...do you believe the bible teaching on election Rufus?]

] I am well aware of those who offer the verses about 20 year olds, but they are a red herring.
Rebellious children were to be stoned to death, they were fully accountable ; Deut:21
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you;and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
The age of "accountability did not come into play, because it is not taught.
You not go to ;
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

The only teaching here is that David would also go to the realm of the unseen dead [sheol] as the child had. It does not give any other information.

 

[Genez]

Where is the age of accountability in scripture?
Does this negate the necessity of being born from above?
And how long does God need to reveal something?

It is not a particular age number.

It's like entering into puberty, which can vary in what year it begins to individuals.

You enter into accountability, which God requires, when you have enough understanding to be differentiating between good and evil pertaining to what God specifically is seeking.

 

[Genez]

Then those children are not saved by grace since you are clearly saying that God is morally obligated to save small children. You are clearly saying that that infants, babies, children are ENTITLED to be saved. God is indebted to save such.

We need to be saved by grace, because without grace being applied to our soul when presented the Gospel?
No one could believe on account of the flesh will always dominate over the soul, causing automatic rejection.
So we who are matured enough will require grace before we can believe.

In contrast...

Infants that die before accountability? They have no need (nor ability) to make a decision by grace. In their case, they are saved by God's sovereign choice, which is based upon His justice. And, of God resting upon the completeness of the work of Christ on the Cross.

 

[Cameron143]

It is not a particular age number.

It's like entering into puberty, which can vary in what year it begins to individuals.

You enter into accountability, which God requires, when you have enough understanding to be differentiating between good and evil pertaining to what God specifically is seeking.

I appreciate the response, but you didn't answer any of my questions. Would you please?

 

[Rufus]

[QUOTE="Cameron143, post: 5389305, member: 314370"]Matthew 18:14 is similar to 1 Timothy 2:3-4. While I believe the truth reveals the heart of God, I don't believe it expresses the will of God. The verses in 2 Samuel speak of a particular instance, and no indication is given that this is true in every case. I think both are inconclusive on the subject. [/QUOTE]

Similar but with a big difference. The key word in each of these passages is different. In 1Tim 2:4, the Gr. term "thelei" (Strong's 2309) that is rendered "wants" in the NIV or "desires" in the ESV and NASB speaks to God's Desirous Will to wit:

thelo
NT:2309 thelo (thel'-o); or ethelo (eth-el'-o); in certain tenses theleo (thel-eh'-o); and etheleo (eth-el-eh'-o); which are otherwise obsolete; apparently strengthened from the alternate form of NT:138; to determine (as an active option from subjective impulse; whereas NT:1014 properly denotes rather a passive acquiescence in objective considerations), i.e. choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); by implication, to wish, i.e. be inclined to (sometimes adverbially, gladly); impersonally for the future tense, to be about to; by Hebraism, to delight in:

Re Mat 18:14, the the Gr. world "thelema" (Strong's 2307) conveys the sense of God's Decretive or Preceptive Will.

thelema
NT:2307 thelema (thel'-ay-mah); from the prolonged form of NT:2309; a determination (properly, the thing), i.e. (actively) choice (specially, purpose, decree; abstractly, volition) or (passively) inclination:

KJV - desire, pleasure, will.

For example, we know for a fact that God KEEPS or preserves all his elect (Jude 1, 24; Ps 31:23; 1Sam 2:9; Prov 2:8, etc, etc.) . Jesus promised that he would not lose so much as one of his Father's sheep (Jn 10:28-29). Even the larger context of Mat 18 speaks to the preservation of God's saints (vv. 12-14) The fact that Jesus could speak in such a manner tells us that his Father has decreed the eternal safety of all his elect. This keeping/preserving is also clearly implied in Rom 8:29-30 -- the classic passage that speaks to the UNBREAKABLE chain of salvation" that began in eternity with Predestination and ultimately ends in eternity with our glorification. And we can know that in Mat 18, he most definitely has in mind his Father's elect by not only vv.12-14 but also by his Jesus' remarks about "their angels" -- angels of the little ones (v. 10). And we know that God's angels often minister to and serve God's elect.

"Thelema" is often used in scripture to denote the decretive or preceptive will of God (cf. Mat 6:10; 7:21; Lk 22:42; Jn 5:30; 6:38-39; 9:31: Rom 2:18, etc, etc.)

Also, I would caution against summarily dismissing 2Sam 12:23. The passage is inspired by God and wasn't put there in the book as mere filler. It was put there to inform God's saints -- or more accurately to comfort the saints who lose young ones. Doesn't the Word pronounce a curse upon all those who don't love God (1Cor 16:22)? And doesn't the Word tell us that it's impossible to please God without faith (Heb 11:6)? Just these two verses alone would offer no hope or consolation for the death of the very young. Christian parents would think that my baby was too young to love God or have faith in him...and now my child is gone -- my child who was also guilty of Adams's sin! But David -- the "apple of God's eye" must have been given assurance by God that one day he would see and be reunited with his son. How GRACIOUS of God! God punished David for his great sins by taking his son away from him -- Yet, in God's anger he did not forget Mercy. What an awesome God we have!

And at the risk of stating the obvious, both passages harmonize with each other. So...there is that.

 

[Rufus]

[QUOTE="Cameron143, post: 5389305, member: 314370"]Matthew 18:14 is similar to 1 Timothy 2:3-4. While I believe the truth reveals the heart of God, I don't believe it expresses the will of God. The verses in 2 Samuel speak of a particular instance, and no indication is given that this is true in every case. I think both are inconclusive on the subject.

Similar but with a big difference. The key word in each of these passages is different. In 1Tim 2:4, the Gr. term "thelei" (Strong's 2309) that is rendered "wants" in the NIV or "desires" in the ESV and NASB speaks to God's Desirative Will to wit:

thelo
NT:2309 thelo (thel'-o); or ethelo (eth-el'-o); in certain tenses theleo (thel-eh'-o); and etheleo (eth-el-eh'-o); which are otherwise obsolete; apparently strengthened from the alternate form of NT:138; to determine (as an active option from subjective impulse; whereas NT:1014 properly denotes rather a passive acquiescence in objective considerations), i.e. choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); by implication, to wish, i.e. be inclined to (sometimes adverbially, gladly); impersonally for the future tense, to be about to; by Hebraism, to delight in:

Re Mat 18:14, the the Gr. world "thelema" (Strong's 2307) conveys the sense of God's Decretive or Preceptive Will.

thelema
NT:2307 thelema (thel'-ay-mah); from the prolonged form of NT:2309; a determination (properly, the thing), i.e. (actively) choice (specially, purpose, decree; abstractly, volition) or (passively) inclination:

KJV - desire, pleasure, will.

For example, we know for a fact that God KEEPS or preserves all his elect (Jude 1, 24; Ps 31:23; 1Sam 2:9; Prov 2:8, etc, etc.) . Jesus promised that he would not lose so much as one of his Father's sheep (Jn 10:28-29). Even the larger context of Mat 18 speaks to the preservation of God's saints (vv. 12-14) The fact that Jesus could speak in such a manner tells us that his Father has decreed the eternal safety of all his elect. This keeping/preserving is also clearly implied in Rom 8:29-30 -- the classic passage that speaks to the UNBREAKABLE chain of salvation" that began in eternity with Predestination and ultimately ends in eternity with our Glorification. And we can know that in Mat 18, he most definitely has in mind his Father's elect by not only vv.12-14 but also by his Jesus' remarks about "their angels" -- angels of the little ones (v. 10). And we know that God's angels often minister to and serve God's elect.

"Thelema" is often used in scripture to denote the decretive or preceptive will of God (cf. Mat 6:10; 7:21; Lk 22:42; Jn 5:30; 6:38-39; 9:31: Rom 2:18, etc, etc.)

Also, I would caution against summarily dismissing 2Sam 12:23. The passage is inspired by God and wasn't put there in the book as mere filler. It was put there to inform God's saints -- or more accurately to comfort the saints who lose young ones. Doesn't the Word pronounce a curse upon all those who don't love God (1Cor 16:22)? And doesn't the Word tell us that it's impossible to please God without faith (Heb 11:6)? Just these two verses alone would offer no hope or consolation for the death of the very young. Christian parents would think that my baby was too young to love God or have faith in him...and now my child is gone -- my child who was also guilty of Adams's sin! But David -- the "apple of God's eye" must have been given assurance by God that one day he would see and be reunited with his son. How GRACIOUS of God! God punished David for his great sins by taking his son away from him -- Yet, in God's anger he did not forget Mercy. What an awesome God we have!

And at the risk of stating the obvious, both passages harmonize with each other. So...there is that.[/QUOTE]

 

[Cameron143]

[QUOTE="Cameron143, post: 5389305, member: 314370"]Matthew 18:14 is similar to 1 Timothy 2:3-4. While I believe the truth reveals the heart of God, I don't believe it expresses the will of God. The verses in 2 Samuel speak of a particular instance, and no indication is given that this is true in every case. I think both are inconclusive on the subject.

Similar but with a big difference. The key word in each of these passages is different. In 1Tim 2:4, the Gr. term "thelei" (Strong's 2309) that is rendered "wants" in the NIV or "desires" in the ESV and NASB speaks to God's Desirous Will to wit:

thelo
NT:2309 thelo (thel'-o); or ethelo (eth-el'-o); in certain tenses theleo (thel-eh'-o); and etheleo (eth-el-eh'-o); which are otherwise obsolete; apparently strengthened from the alternate form of NT:138; to determine (as an active option from subjective impulse; whereas NT:1014 properly denotes rather a passive acquiescence in objective considerations), i.e. choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); by implication, to wish, i.e. be inclined to (sometimes adverbially, gladly); impersonally for the future tense, to be about to; by Hebraism, to delight in:

Re Mat 18:14, the the Gr. world "thelema" (Strong's 2307) conveys the sense of God's Decretive or Preceptive Will.

thelema
NT:2307 thelema (thel'-ay-mah); from the prolonged form of NT:2309; a determination (properly, the thing), i.e. (actively) choice (specially, purpose, decree; abstractly, volition) or (passively) inclination:

KJV - desire, pleasure, will.

For example, we know for a fact that God KEEPS or preserves all his elect (Jude 1, 24; Ps 31:23; 1Sam 2:9; Prov 2:8, etc, etc.) . Jesus promised that he would not lose so much as one of his Father's sheep (Jn 10:28-29). Even the larger context of Mat 18 speaks to the preservation of God's saints (vv. 12-14) The fact that Jesus could speak in such a manner tells us that his Father has decreed the eternal safety of all his elect. This keeping/preserving is also clearly implied in Rom 8:29-30 -- the classic passage that speaks to the UNBREAKABLE chain of salvation" that began in eternity with Predestination and ultimately ends in eternity with our glorification. And we can know that in Mat 18, he most definitely has in mind his Father's elect by not only vv.12-14 but also by his Jesus' remarks about "their angels" -- angels of the little ones (v. 10). And we know that God's angels often minister to and serve God's elect.

"Thelema" is often used in scripture to denote the decretive or preceptive will of God (cf. Mat 6:10; 7:21; Lk 22:42; Jn 5:30; 6:38-39; 9:31: Rom 2:18, etc, etc.)

Also, I would caution against summarily dismissing 2Sam 12:23. The passage is inspired by God and wasn't put there in the book as mere filler. It was put there to inform God's saints -- or more accurately to comfort the saints who lose young ones. Doesn't the Word pronounce a curse upon all those who don't love God (1Cor 16:22)? And doesn't the Word tell us that it's impossible to please God without faith (Heb 11:6)? Just these two verses alone would offer no hope or consolation for the death of the very young. Christian parents would think that my baby was too young to love God or have faith in him...and now my child is gone -- my child who was also guilty of Adams's sin! But David -- the "apple of God's eye" must have been given assurance by God that one day he would see and be reunited with his son. How GRACIOUS of God! God punished David for his great sins by taking his son away from him -- Yet, in God's anger he did not forget Mercy. What an awesome God we have!

And at the risk of stating the obvious, both passages harmonize with each other. So...there is that.[/QUOTE]
You still haven't dealt with the need to be born from above. Since you don't believe they possess the requisite ability to understand and believe, how does this transpire?

 

[Rufus]

We need to be saved by grace, because without grace being applied to our soul when presented the Gospel?
No one could believe on account of the flesh will always dominate over the soul, causing automatic rejection.
So we who are matured enough will require grace before we can believe.

In contrast...

Infants that die before accountability? They have no need (nor ability) to make a decision by grace. In their case, they are saved by God's sovereign choice, which is based upon His justice. And, of God resting upon the completeness of the work of Christ on the Cross.

There is no "contrast". You conveniently forget that EVERYONE comes into this world in ADAM! Each and everyone us is guilty of Adam's sin -- Sin that God sovereignly decreed to be imputed to us, since Adam is the federal head of the human race. The only people who are NOT in Adam are God's elect. Therefore, the "innocent" infants that come into this world are as much in need of God's grace as any adult! And God would not be unjust if he condemned everyone in Adam.

 

[Rufus]

QUOTE="Cameron143, post: 5389305, member: 314370"]Matthew 18:14 is similar to 1 Timothy 2:3-4. While I believe the truth reveals the heart of God, I don't believe it expresses the will of God. The verses in 2 Samuel speak of a particular instance, and no indication is given that this is true in every case. I think both are inconclusive on the subject. [/quote]

OOPS! Something went amiss with my reply to Cameron. Sorry 'bout that, everyone.

Similar but with a big difference. The key word in each of these passages is different. In 1Tim 2:4, the Gr. term "thelei" (Strong's 2309) that is rendered "wants" in the NIV or "desires" in the ESV and NASB speaks to God's Desirous Will to wit:

thelo
NT:2309 thelo (thel'-o); or ethelo (eth-el'-o); in certain tenses theleo (thel-eh'-o); and etheleo (eth-el-eh'-o); which are otherwise obsolete; apparently strengthened from the alternate form of NT:138; to determine (as an active option from subjective impulse; whereas NT:1014 properly denotes rather a passive acquiescence in objective considerations), i.e. choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); by implication, to wish, i.e. be inclined to (sometimes adverbially, gladly); impersonally for the future tense, to be about to; by Hebraism, to delight in:

Re Mat 18:14, the the Gr. world "thelema" (Strong's 2307) conveys the sense of God's Decretive or Preceptive Will.

thelema
NT:2307 thelema (thel'-ay-mah); from the prolonged form of NT:2309; a determination (properly, the thing), i.e. (actively) choice (specially, purpose, decree; abstractly, volition) or (passively) inclination:

KJV - desire, pleasure, will.

For example, we know for a fact that God KEEPS or preserves all his elect (Jude 1, 24; Ps 31:23; 1Sam 2:9; Prov 2:8, etc, etc.) . Jesus promised that he would not lose so much as one of his Father's sheep (Jn 10:28-29). Even the larger context of Mat 18 speaks to the preservation of God's saints (vv. 12-14) The fact that Jesus could speak in such a manner tells us that his Father has decreed the eternal safety of all his elect. This keeping/preserving is also clearly implied in Rom 8:29-30 -- the classic passage that speaks to the UNBREAKABLE chain of salvation" that began in eternity with Predestination and ultimately ends in eternity with our glorification. And we can know that in Mat 18, he most definitely has in mind his Father's elect by not only vv.12-14 but also by his Jesus' remarks about "their angels" -- angels of the little ones (v. 10). And we know that God's angels often minister to and serve God's elect.

"Thelema" is often used in scripture to denote the decretive or preceptive will of God (cf. Mat 6:10; 7:21; Lk 22:42; Jn 5:30; 6:38-39; 9:31: Rom 2:18, etc, etc.)

Also, I would caution against summarily dismissing 2Sam 12:23. The passage is inspired by God and wasn't put there in the book as mere filler. It was put there to inform God's saints -- or more accurately to comfort the saints who lose young ones. Doesn't the Word pronounce a curse upon all those who don't love God (1Cor 16:22)? And doesn't the Word tell us that it's impossible to please God without faith (Heb 11:6)? Just these two verses alone would offer no hope or consolation for the death of the very young. Christian parents would think that my baby was too young to love God or have faith in him...and now my child is gone -- my child who was also guilty of Adams's sin! But David -- the "apple of God's eye" must have been given assurance by God that one day he would see and be reunited with his son. How GRACIOUS of God! God punished David for his great sins by taking his son away from him -- Yet, in God's anger he did not forget Mercy. What an awesome God we have!

And at the risk of stating the obvious, both passages harmonize with each other. So...there is that.[/QUOTE]
You still haven't dealt with the need to be born from above. Since you don't believe they possess the requisite ability to understand and believe, how does this transpire?

 

[Genez]

Where is the age of accountability in scripture?

He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, ​

for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings ​

you dread will be laid waste. Isaiah 7:15-16​

Does this negate the necessity of being born from above?

To be born again for those reaching accountability, it requires one to believe what he is shown from the Gospel.
Cameron? Can a three-day-old baby do that? Before he dies?

Like I said. God sovereignly saves that soul whom God had to allow to die before reaching accountability.

And how long does God need to reveal something?

For some of us, once. For others, it will vary.
How long did it take Pharaoh to finally get it and let the Jews go?

 

[Genez]

There is no "contrast". You conveniently forget that EVERYONE comes into this world in ADAM! Each and everyone us is guilty of Adam's sin -- Sin that God sovereignly decreed to be imputed to us, since Adam is the federal head of the human race. The only people who are NOT in Adam are God's elect. Therefore, the "innocent" infants that come into this world are as much in need of God's grace as any adult! And God would not be unjust if he condemned everyone in Adam.

I detect you are a Calvinist? Perhaps?

 

[Genez]

There is no "contrast". You conveniently forget that EVERYONE comes into this world in ADAM! Each and everyone us is guilty of Adam's sin --

Have you forgotten?
The Cross paid the penalty for Adam's sin.

​

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, ​

but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2​

No one is going to Hell for their sins.
Everyone in Hell is there because of one thing. Their rejection of Jesus Christ.

For that reason, no unbeliever's sins are to be mentioned at the final judgment.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead ​

which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Revelation 20:13​

Why, according to their works? And not according to their sins?
Because one work will be searched for and not found.

We are not saved by works (which is plural).
But, by one single work. (singular)
One work will not be found in the book of works.

And, that one work that saves is what?

​

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”​

​

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” John 6:28-29​

​

​

Because of the completeness and finality of the Blood of Christ on the Cross, no one is going to have their sins mentioned to condemn them.

​

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, ​

but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2​

All sins of the world, Jesus bore the penalty for therm!

The one work God will seek to find is for one to believe in the one he has sent.”

Peace and quiet...

 

[PaulThomson]

And the reason why man isn't good is because he cannot perfectly keep God's law which is holy, righteous and good (Rom 7:12). Therefore, in Paul's indictment of mankind, he says, "there is no one who does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12b). What Paul means is that no one does "good" Godward because no one serves God. Even the good that an unbeliever does toward his fellow man is ultimately not good because God is not in the equation of the doing! Whatever good on the horizontal plane that man does toward another is not done to the glory and honor and praise of God. Therefore, this kind of "good" is still evil!

Why should we believ you when you replace what Paul saya with what you cl;aim Paul means?

Paul says is " There is no one who keeps on doing good, not even one" The Koine Greek present tense by default expresses a progressive action, not a simple present scientific fact, such as "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level.

There is no one who keeps on doing good, not even one," does NOT mean "There is no one who does good, not even one."

 

[Cameron143]

He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, ​

for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings ​

you dread will be laid waste. Isaiah 7:15-16​

To be born again for those reaching accountability, it requires one to believe what he is shown from the Gospel.
Cameron? Can a three-day-old baby do that? Before he dies?

Like I said. God sovereignly saves that soul whom God had to allow to die before reaching accountability.




For some of us, once. For others, it will vary.
How long did it take Pharaoh to finally get it and let the Jews go?

1. It speaks of a time when a child is in a state of innocence. It does not speak of a time that a child is not under condemnation.
2. Why qualify my question? I simply asked if the "age of accountability" negated the necessity of being born from above? I grant that God typically saves through faith employing His word and by His Spirit. But God isn't restricted to a particular model. He can save anyone anywhere as He pleases. An individual's cognitive estate is not a hindrance to salvation. Yet, being born from above is always necessary for salvation. An individual cannot be saved apart from this work of God.
3. The passage you share in 2 Samuel is inconclusive concerning the fate of all children. Certainly God is gracious to David's child, but there is no indication from the passage that this occurs with every child.

 

[Rufus]

I detect you are a Calvinist? Perhaps?

You just figured that out? I suppose late is better than never <g>.

So tell me, sir: You have appealed to God's justice by saying it would be unjust for God to condemn the very young who die never having a true knowledge of good and evil. Well...if that's the case, then please give me an coherent explanation of how it's not also unjust of God to decree the physical death of the young. The very young die everyday! Doesn't everyone die physically for their sins? Yet, infants commit no personal sins. So...how is this fair?

In fact, .explain also how it wasn't unjust for God to punish David by taking the "innocent" life of his newborn? Why should the infant have suffered for the sins of his father? How was that just of God?

 

[Rufus]

1. It speaks of a time when a child is in a state of innocence. It does not speak of a time that a child is not under condemnation.
2. Why qualify my question? I simply asked if the "age of accountability" negated the necessity of being born from above? I grant that God typically saves through faith employing His word and by His Spirit. But God isn't restricted to a particular model. He can save anyone anywhere as He pleases. An individual's cognitive estate is not a hindrance to salvation. Yet, being born from above is always necessary for salvation. An individual cannot be saved apart from this work of God.
3. The passage you share in 2 Samuel is inconclusive concerning the fate of all children. Certainly God is gracious to David's child, but there is no indication from the passage that this occurs with every child.

It's not inconclusive if you rightly understand what is going on in Matthew 18 -- in which Jesus' focus is on his Father's sheep. Since its God's [decretive] will that none of "these little ones" (in both the physical and spiritual senses) should perish, then could Jesus have been any clearer than that? Don't forget: The term "children" in the NT most often refers to believers, in fact the phrase "dear children" (clearly a phrase of endearment) is used 11 times in the NT. What happened to David's young child affirms what Jesus taught.

 

[Genez]

1. It speaks of a time when a child is in a state of innocence. It does not speak of a time that a child is not under condemnation.
2. Why qualify my question? I simply asked if the "age of accountability" negated the necessity of being born from above? I grant that God typically saves through faith employing His word and by His Spirit. But God isn't restricted to a particular model. He can save anyone anywhere as He pleases. An individual's cognitive estate is not a hindrance to salvation. Yet, being born from above is always necessary for salvation. An individual cannot be saved apart from this work of God.
3. The passage you share in 2 Samuel is inconclusive concerning the fate of all children. Certainly God is gracious to David's child, but there is no indication from the passage that this occurs with every child.

Have an "ice" day....

 

[Genez]

1. It speaks of a time when a child is in a state of innocence. It does not speak of a time that a child is not under condemnation.
2. Why qualify my question? I simply asked if the "age of accountability" negated the necessity of being born from above? I grant that God typically saves through faith employing His word and by His Spirit. But God isn't restricted to a particular model. He can save anyone anywhere as He pleases. An individual's cognitive estate is not a hindrance to salvation. Yet, being born from above is always necessary for salvation. An individual cannot be saved apart from this work of God.
3. The passage you share in 2 Samuel is inconclusive concerning the fate of all children. Certainly God is gracious to David's child, but there is no indication from the passage that this occurs with every child.

Do you talk to yourself often?

You are a good agent.

 

[Genez]

You just figured that out? I suppose late is better than never <g>.

So tell me, sir: You have appealed to God's justice by saying it would be unjust for God to condemn the very young who die never having a true knowledge of good and evil. Well...if that's the case, then please give me an coherent explanation of how it's not also unjust of God to decree the physical death of the young. The very young die everyday! Doesn't everyone die physically for their sins? Yet, infants commit no personal sins. So...how is this fair?

In fact, .explain also how it wasn't unjust for God to punish David by taking the "innocent" life of his newborn? Why should the infant have suffered for the sins of his father? How was that just of God?

Why did God let you live?
Nothing good about you. Just ask Theodore Beza...

 

[Rufus]

Have an "ice" day....

Wow! That was cold...