Judas Iscariot

[IRQ Conflict]

But you did not address how one obtains faith to begin with.

(Romans 12:3) For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

[IRQ Conflict]

I'll just give you Paul's explanation for Pharoah. If you think it's misguided, so be it.

Romans 9:19-23
"You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,"

I think, you must be confusing 'born into sin' (via the bloodline) as opposed to the act of sinning. i.e. unrepentant. To God and His Law, sin is sin and there is a penalty to pay for it, death (the first death).

(Romans 9:11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

(Matthew 19:14) But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

[puritan lad]

But you did not address how one obtains faith to begin with.

(Romans 12:3) For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

"Every man" cannot be considered universal, since "not all have faith". 2 Thessalonians 3:2. The faith that we have is itself a gift from God, and not all have it.

[puritan lad]

OHH how beatiful does that old hymn accurately express God's love.
It goes:
"Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world." I believe it to this day, that He loves all enough to save them all, even though all will not be saved.

But wait a minute, you are being hypocritical in singing this song if
1. You believe God sends babies to hell
2. That God doesn't have a God has a special salvational redemptive love for every creature especially babies.

In His Love and without intentional disrepsect for any,
SoaringEagle

No offense taken. The problem is that the "age of accountability" cannot be defended with scripture. There is only one way of salvation. All men must be born again, no exceptions. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and the flesh profits nothing. I'd be interested in your view of the following scripture.

Romans 9:10-13
"And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

[puritan lad]

I think, you must be confusing 'born into sin' (via the bloodline) as opposed to the act of sinning. i.e. unrepentant. To God and His Law, sin is sin and there is a penalty to pay for it, death (the first death).

(Romans 9:11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

(Matthew 19:14) But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

The little children must come to Him. Your Scriptures refute, not support the "Age of Accountibility". Here are some more.

Psalm 51:5
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."

Psalm 58:3-5
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent; They are like the deaf cobra that stops its ear, Which will not heed the voice of charmers, Charming ever so skillfully."

Ephesians 2:3
"among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others"

In order to believe in the age of accountability, one must either...

1.) Deny Original Sin.
2.) Deny the need for the new birth.

Infants and unborn children can be born again (Luke 1:43-44). They must.

[IRQ Conflict]

But you did not address how one obtains faith to begin with.

(Romans 12:3) For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

"Every man" cannot be considered universal, since "not all have faith". 2 Thessalonians 3:2. The faith that we have is itself a gift from God, and not all have it.

I believe 2 Th 3:2 is refereing to men that don't have faith in God. God has given all a measure of faith, what we choose to put that faith in is up to the indavidule.

Jud 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Jud 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
Jud 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

[IRQ Conflict]

The little children must come to Him. Your Scriptures refute, not support the "Age of Accountibility".

Um, he was telling those that were trying to shoo the kids away not to do that! For these He say's are those of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Psalm 51:5
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."

This one I'll look into in a bit. Edit: Upon reflection (without Study) it appears to me this simply states the obvious that he / we are born into sin through Adams blood (the curse).

Psalm 58:3-5
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent; They are like the deaf cobra that stops its ear, Which will not heed the voice of charmers, Charming ever so skillfully."

How many babies do you know that come out of the womb spewing lies and such? I was at the birth of my son, and correct me if i'm wrong but all he did was cry and coo a little

Ephesians 2:3
"among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others"

Do you have any idea how many times the word "children" appears in the Bible? And I'd wager most of them are not referencing non adult humans. i.e. "children of God" "children of Israel" Replace the word children with the word spawn, you'll get the idea.

In order to believe in the age of accountability, one must either...

1.) Deny Original Sin.
2.) Deny the need for the new birth.

Or
3.) oh noes! believe (have faith) that what the Bible say's is actually what the Bible meant.

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge, between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

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.

Infants and unborn children can be born again (Luke 1:43-44). They must.

I'm not sure I see the connection here either.

This revolves around the visitation of mary by an angel telling her she will bear the Child Jesus. When she went to Elizabeth's home and Mary spoke the baby lept in her womb.

[puritan lad]

The little children must come to Him. Your Scriptures refute, not support the "Age of Accountibility".

Um, he was telling those that were trying to shoo the kids away not to do that! :? For these He say's are those of the Kingdom of Heaven.

If that were the case, then why did the children need to come to Jesus in the first place?

Psalm 51:5
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."

This one I'll look into in a bit. Edit: Upon reflection (without Study) it appears to me this simply states the obvious that he / we are born into sin through Adams blood (the curse).

Which means that without the new birth, they are doomed from birth, just as Esau was.

Psalm 58:3-5
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent; They are like the deaf cobra that stops its ear, Which will not heed the voice of charmers, Charming ever so skillfully."

How many babies do you know that come out of the womb spewing lies and such? I was at the birth of my son, and correct me if i'm wrong but all he did was cry and coo a little ;)

The Bible disagrees. True, your son only cried and cooed (and I'm sure was adorable). But according to scripture, he was born already guilty, just like the rest of us. This is what Original Sin means.

Ephesians 2:3
"among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others"

Do you have any idea how many times the word "children" appears in the Bible? And I'd wager most of them are not referencing non adult humans. i.e. "children of God" "children of Israel" Replace the word children with the word spawn, you'll get the idea.

The emphasis here wasn't intended to be "children", but that all of us are "by nature children of wrath". This is our estate right from birth. There is no salvation aside from the new birth, regardless of age.

In order to believe in the age of accountability, one must either...

1.) Deny Original Sin.
2.) Deny the need for the new birth.

Or
3.) oh noes! believe (have faith) that what the Bible say's is actually what the Bible meant. ;)

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge, between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

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.

What does this have to do with an "age of accountability"? Does one have to have a "knowledge" of evil to be guilty of sin? In that case, Adam and Eve were innocent, since they had no knowledge of good and evil until after the fall.

[SoaringEagle]

There's something about you I like Puritan Lad, maybe it's your zeal in defending what you percieve to be Scripture.

Anyways you have interest for what I think the Following Scripture says. Well here it is.

Romans 9:10-13
"And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

First, I see this to be talking of Unconditional corporate election to be used as an instrument for the Glory of God to be seen on the earth, and to be a nation of fruitfulness. That nation chosen or elected was the nation of Israel.

1. Romans 9:12,13 "It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."


The man Esau never served the man Jacob. But Edom did serve Israel. And when Jacob first met Esau after his exile what did Jacob say to Esau?
He tells Esau that he Jacob is his Esau's servant:

Genesis 32:4 "He instructed them: This is what you are to say to my master Esau: Your servant Jacob says, I have been staying with Laban and have remained there till now."

And if we follow scripture we will never find a point where the man Jacob served the man Esau.

Which is more clear when one looks at the Genesis text Paul quoted:
Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger."

So it is clear that this is not about individual election to salvation, but about National election - God choosing a nation/people to serve Him on earth.

And of course the common reply is that individuals make up the nation. This response is sometimes used in to defend to Reformed view of election. But in actuallity, this response DOES NOT prove unconditional individual election to salvation. It only brings an inadequate question for the more biblical view on election, that being corporate. When the death angel came and took all the firstborn (males what it?) in Egypt, we see that "anyone" could come in a place where blood was marked over a door, and in fact, some Egyptian soldiers did so. The blood was available for whoever would come. This was a type of salvation. Also, we see that people who weren't born among the chosen nation could become a member of that nation like Rahab. A natural-born Jew could apostatize from Israel, and a Gentile could be proselytized into it. It was Israel (the category) that was chosen, not the composition of its constituency. If Israel was "chosen" by God, then those who adhered to Israel's covenant enjoyed the benefits of that "chosen-ness." They were chosen "in Israel."

So we should see that the message Paul was attempting to give in Romans 9 was one of Corporate election and that Individual Unconditional election to salvation/heaven is

1. Not the contextual message
2. a view that arrived from bad heurmenutics (hope I spelled that right)
3. Became a traditional teaching.

So Puritan Lad, I hope I satisfied your interest. Maybe so, maybe not. I hope you weren't trying to use this Scripture you gave to support God sends babies to hell. That is far from Paul's context and original meaning. If so, you aren't serious are you? Anyways, you have yet to deal with my two posts above. If you disagree, do a post by post critique on them on show me my error. Otherwise, we'd be running in circles getting nowhere fast. As for babies, they will reap what they sow, and since they can't sow sin, they won't reap corruption and destruction (hell).

Be blessed P.L.
SoaringEagle

[puritan lad]

So it is clear that this is not about individual election to salvation, but about National election - God choosing a nation/people to serve Him on earth.

We could get into a whole new Covenantal debate on just who is "Israel", but you'll find that has been beaten around already. In any case, the rest of the passage in Romans 9 poses a problem for your view of corporate election, particularly the part about Pharoah. I have yet to see any Arminian give a valid explanation of God hardening Pharoah's heart (while remaining true to the scriptures.) See debate at http://discussions.godandscience.org/about767.html

So we should see that the message Paul was attempting to give in Romans 9 was one of Corporate election and that Individual Unconditional election to salvation/heaven is

1. Not the contextual message
2. a view that arrived from bad heurmenutics (hope I spelled that right)
3. Became a traditional teaching.

So Puritan Lad, I hope I satisfied your interest. Maybe so, maybe not. I hope you weren't trying to use this Scripture you gave to support God sends babies to hell. That is far from Paul's context and original meaning. If so, you aren't serious are you? Anyways, you have yet to deal with my two posts above. If you disagree, do a post by post critique on them on show me my error. Otherwise, we'd be running in circles getting nowhere fast. As for babies, they will reap what they sow, and since they can't sow sin, they won't reap corruption and destruction (hell).

Be blessed P.L.
SoaringEagle

As a former Arminian (and "age of accountability" promoter), let me say that I can appreciate the "bombshell" that is dropped when you suggest that there is no age of accountability. However, we must remain true to the scriptures, and there is nothing that can support the age of accountability doctrine. Untimately, the doctrine suggests that God allows unregenerate sinners into heaven, thereby the problem. We are already children of wrath by nature. The wrath of God already abides on the unregenerate. He that does not believe in condemned already. There is nothing to suggest that age has any bearing on this estate of natural man.

You may be interested in dealings with the entire passage of Romans 9:10-23 in the Calvinism/Arminianism thread. http://discussions.godandscience.org/about1037.html

Another interesting piece is John Owen's "The Idol of Free Will".Owen is a little more blunt and forward in his writing than I am, but he is correct in his thesis.

God Bless,

PL

[IRQ Conflict]

Puritan Lad, Let me try to explain this again, then you can reason for yourself if this makes sense.

When Adam and Eve first ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they fell under the penalty of death (for sinning). All of us through the blood fall under that curse.

Did you know that your physical body has blood (the life) to keep you running? Did you also know that the spirit and soul do not?

It is the blood that needs destruction, as it is corrupt! The Bible clearly states that it is appointed unto man once to die, the first death (physical). Therefore all whom are conceived via a human womb will die the first death.

I have no doubt that Adam and Eves' sin of disobedience would have wrought it's own punishment as that is a 'type of sin' to be judged. And they were also well beyond the year of accountability.

So if the blood is corrupt and needs to die, where does that leave the spirit and soul portions of our being? All those that have died before us and have gone to be with the Lord have yet to receive glorified bodies. Because they have none, it died the death it needed to in order to satisfy the Laws of God.

Suffice it to say that babies being born to sin through the blood receive the 'gift of death' but their souls and spirits not knowing the difference between Good and evil, cannot therefore be judged on not doing something.

We have to differentiate between what part of us gets judged and sentenced when and why. We will be judged (whoever is passed the age of accountability) BTW that age according to God is 20 years, once you reach 20; he deems your actions and decisions judicable.

Num 14:29 Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old, and upward, which have murmured against me,

[SoaringEagle]

Puritan Lad,
I knew I should have clarified more on that last part.

You wrote,
"As a former Arminian (and "age of accountability" promoter), let me say that I can appreciate the "bombshell" that is dropped when you suggest that there is no age of accountability."


Well, first know that I don't "suggest" that there is no age of accountability. I am speaking specifically and only of aborted, still-born, and very young infants. From there on up is up in the air though I'd say age of acountability IS biblical.

You wrote
However, we must remain true to the scriptures, and there is nothing that can support the age of accountability doctrine.

There is also nothing MAJOR that supports it either, that is, those Scriptures you give aren't specifally dealing with the issue.

You wrote
Untimately, the doctrine suggests that God allows unregenerate sinners into heaven, thereby the problem. We are already children of wrath by nature. The wrath of God already abides on the unregenerate. He that does not believe in condemned already. There is nothing to suggest that age has any bearing on this estate of natural man.

God has let "unregenerate" people into heaven. The Old Testament saints. They were unable to be "born again". That's the privilege we as New Covenant saints are able to partake in. True, before the new birth, man is a child of wrath. But the word children has already been pointed out to you that is doesn't neccesarily specifically deal with infants etc. He that does not believe is condemned already, but not believing is a choice, and one that a baby is unable to make.

Please tell me, what will unborn babies be punished for? Again, you have yet to deal with my posts. Why are you avoiding that? Anyways, when I get some time, maybe I can/will go over your posts on Calvinism and tell you what I think. Be blessed my friend.
SoaringEagle

[puritan lad]

Well, first know that I don't "suggest" that there is no age of accountability. I am speaking specifically and only of aborted, still-born, and very young infants. From there on up is up in the air though I'd say age of acountability IS biblical.

Perhaps I should have been clearer in my post. I refered to “you” as a general statement, not specifically you. I probably should have said “when one suggests”. In any case, the “age of accountability” is not biblical. If it were, then the Bible would clearly have said such. Since you admit that the Bible does not deal with the doctrine directly (or for that matter indirectly), then I will conclude that it was invented out of thin air by wishful-thinking.

God has let "unregenerate" people into heaven. The Old Testament saints. They were unable to be "born again". That's the privilege we as New Covenant saints are able to partake in. True, before the new birth, man is a child of wrath. But the word children has already been pointed out to you that is doesn't neccesarily specifically deal with infants etc. He that does not believe is condemned already, but not believing is a choice, and one that a baby is unable to make.

Too many errors here to deal with, but I'll deal with this one.

“God has let "unregenerate" people into heaven. The Old Testament saints. They were unable to be "born again". That's the privilege we as New Covenant saints are able to partake in.”

Wrong. The Old Testament Saints were saved by the same gospel and grace as the New Testament saints. Ezekiel describes the New Birth.

Ezekiel 36:26
“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.”

Please tell me, what will unborn babies be punished for? Again, you have yet to deal with my posts. Why are you avoiding that?

For being born willful, deliberate sinners (Psalm 58:3)

Looking forward to your Calvinism responses.

God Bless,

PL

[SoaringEagle]

Puritan Lad, I really enjoy discussing this with you. I don't know why, usaully there is tension and strife along with division over such discussion. But for some reason, that has yet to occur. Thanks for doing your part.

So when did the new birth fulfillment in that "prophesy" happen?

You wrote
Since you admit that the Bible does not deal with the doctrine directly (or for that matter indirectly), then I will conclude that it was invented out of thin air by wishful-thinking.

If that's your choice, then I pray you are correct. Otherwise you will be held accountable for teaching and spreading your view on this matter at the Judgment seat of Christ where "ever idle word" will be judged along with our "works". It's not so much that the bible doesn't deal with this subject directly or indirectly, but doesn't go "in depth" on this as some other subjects are dealt with. (If what I am saying makes since). You have to agree that the opposite and reverse side of this view (age of accountability) which is that babies go to hell forever could also have been invented out of thin air by wishful-thinking or reconciling this with the reformed view. Thanks for your answer, but it makes no since. They haven't been born yet, so how can they be wicked? They may have a sinful nature, but their spirit, soul, heart, conscience, and intuition hasn't been defiled, darkened, corrupted by their sinful choices. So are you saying that they are punished for sin they haven't commited? What specific sin?

I appreciate you and your manner of responses,
In Christ,
SoaringEagle

Interesting Thoughts IRQ conflict

[puritan lad]

SoaringEagle,

I, in turn, appreciate the nature of your response. It's a shame that most Christians cannot debate doctrine without "name-calling", etc. I believe that doctrines such as this should be debated, sometimes even heated, "As iron sharpens iron". As you will be able to tell from reading my posts, I'm not afraid to tackle controversial doctrines, but will usually hold my peace when the debate sours, as some often do.

My view on the "age of accountability" doctrine is strongly relates to my Calvinism and my view of the Total Depravity of Man (as well as the effects of the fall). I believe man is doomed from birth, and is totally incapable of initiating any saving grace whatsoever. From the standpoint, a grown man with a 300 IQ is just as helpless as an infant. Unless God Himself intervenes, this person will be condemned to eternal perdition. I believe that the fall also affect infants and even unborn babies (and they fact that they can suffer physical death supports this view).

I've heard the "age of accountability" taught by many pastors and teachers. Most of them (including myself at one time) just accept this teaching as sort of a matter of fact. However, when pressed to support this teaching with scripture, they stumble to find some sort of biblical support. The fact is that there isn't any, not to mention that this doctrine didn't exist until the last view centuries, even among Arminians.

God Bless,

PL