Age of Accountability

[Hupomone10]

I remember reading a passage where when someones child died, he stopped mourning and started eating again (because he was fasting for his dieing child). He then basically said "why should I mourn or fast, what will it accomplish? I will see him in the next life." Was this child part of Gods flock already or was it before he could commit him self to God? If God is unchanging, as we know he is, then that child is sleeping till the resurrection of Christ. Instead of judgment. So if he is unchanging as I said then shouldn't this be the same for todays time?

That's a good one, I forgot about that one.

Another one I just thought about is
1 Cor 7:14
"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy."


I don't know what implications that has, but it certainly means something.

For what it's worth, I can't buy the idea that all children are part of the elect, for that seems to destroy the entire idea of election as I see it presented in Scripture.

And if election determines, then I think Hammster is right in that whether one is elect or not cannot be decided eternally on the basis of the fact that they died as a child. To say that all children are elect gets pretty close to universalism.

On the other hand, many who have believed election doesn't have anything to do with it, and it is all about the person's will and decision, have a similar problem with child death. They haven't believed.

Our needs and emotions push us to develop doctrines that make us feel better in certain situations.

H.

 

[Isolation]

pre-destination is rubbish

 

[Hammster]

pre-destination is rubbish

Cleared that up.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Right. There's nothing outside of God's providence. That's why your argument is nonsensical. You are saying that it is possible for a non-elect child to become elect if they die in infancy. Or, that a child would be elect if they died in infancy, but since they didn't, they could become reprobate. You are dealing with hypotheticals that cannot be proven or sustained. God, in His providence, will call the elect home in His good time. And the reprobate will be called to account in His good time.

Ok. I know what you believe you know what I believe. We disagree.

 

[Fencerguy]

That's a good one, I forgot about that one.

Another one I just thought about is
1 Cor 7:14
"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy."


I don't know what implications that has, but it certainly means something.

For what it's worth, I can't buy the idea that all children are part of the elect, for that seems to destroy the entire idea of election as I see it presented in Scripture.

And if election determines, then I think Hammster is right in that whether one is elect or not cannot be decided eternally on the basis of the fact that they died as a child. To say that all children are elect gets pretty close to universalism.

On the other hand, many who have believed election doesn't have anything to do with it, and it is all about the person's will and decision, have a similar problem with child death. They haven't believed.

Our needs and emotions push us to develop doctrines that make us feel better in certain situations.

H.

Moderation in all things

 

[Hupomone10]

Moderation in all things

Welcome to the forums, Fencerguy

 

[Skala]

Recent Biblical scholarship has already made Calvinism an endangered species, and the growing awareness and acceptance of this scholarship is bringing Calvinism to extinction.

The "scholarship" you refer to is laughable compared to the sheer power of the puritans, the reformers, and people like Spurgeon and Edwards.

Who are these master theologians you refer to that can outdo them? I'd love to hear some arguments from them

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The "scholarship" you refer to is laughable compared to the sheer power of the puritans, the reformers, and people like Spurgeon and Edwards.

Who are these master theologians you refer to that can outdo them? I'd love to hear some arguments from them

Theologians??? I was referring to scholars of the Biblical languages, linguists, archeologists, anthropologists, historians, and other scholars who during the past 150 years have contributed a wealth of previously unknown pertinent information to Old and New Testament exegesis that is not marred and distorted by a man-made, sixteenth-century system of theology based upon inadequate and often very wrong information.

Sixteenth-century Protestant theology was more of a backlash against the Roman Catholicism of the day than it was based upon Biblical scholarship. The doctrine of the age of accountability was contrived during this very dark period for the Protestant Church.

Nearly twenty centuries have passed since the time of even the New Testament, and only by accurately understanding the people who wrote the New Testament can we hope to understand what they wrote. We know now very clearly that arriving at an accurate understanding of the people who wrote the New Testament is not going to be through hatred of sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism, but through the study of the vocabulary and phraseology of the Early Church as they expressed themselves in their time and culture.

Many more centuries have passed since the time of the Old Testament, and only by accurately understanding the people who wrote the Old Testament can we hope to understand what they wrote and how what they wrote influenced the writers of the New Testament. The very finest contemporary Biblical scholarship is focused upon arriving at such an understanding.

 

[Skala]

Reformed theology can exist and be defined without a reference to the RCC, by the way.

 

[Hupomone10]

Person 1: "How can I know if I'm one of God's elect?"

Person 2"Did you die in infancy or as a child?"

Person 1: "No! Duh!

Person 2: "Then you cannot really know."

Having had my fun, maybe someone has already written this, if so, excuse please...

If God is all-knowing, and if God elects before the foundation of the world, to be later realized by explicit faith in the Savior, then He can elect all children who die young, because He knew before the foundation of the world that this would occur.

But, it can be argued, if that's true, then I should decide to kill your children because I know that will ensure their election (notice I said "yours", not mine.)

However, if what I'm being told is true, that would be something done according to the will of man directly trying to bring about salvation and election; and since regeneration is "nor of the will of man" (John 1:13), and since such a big deal is made of this concept such that all decisions to believe in Christ are poo poo'd, then I'm left with the realization that I actually ensured your childrens' damnation because I tried to accomplish their salvation by "the will of man", even though it was mine, not theirs.

To me, the prospect of whether God will do the completely righteous, holy, and loving thing with my child that dies pales in comparison to the perspective that if election is true the way the 5-Pointers tell us, then I must look my children in the face and know that one may be elect and one may not, and that there is absolutely nothing I or they can do to change that, no amount of Christian teaching, no amount of prayer (will of man), no amount of private school, no amount of home-schooling, will matter a hill of beans. One will be taken, the other left. I can share the gospel. But beyond that, there is no input I can give. I can do nothing about it.

But in the privacy of our thoughts and away from our buddies at church or on the threads, we all know differently, don't we?

In Christ,
H.

 

[Skala]

then I must look my children in the face and know that one may be elect and one may not, and that there is absolutely nothing I or they can do to change that, no amount of Christian teaching, no amount of prayer (will of man), no amount of private school, no amount of home-schooling, will matter a hill of beans. One will be taken, the other left. I can share the gospel. But beyond that, there is no input I can give. I can do nothing about it.

Bro, if I may reverse the situation on you.

If your children grow up and are unwilling to come to God, then there is absolutely nothing you can do it about. No amount of prayer, teaching, private school, home schooling, none of it will matter a hill of beans.

If he's unwilling, then not even God can change his will! So no amount of prayer can help him!

Suddenly you realize that the only hope your child has (or anyone) is that he needs God to do conversion the way 5 pointers believe!

And this part:

I can share the gospel. But beyond that, there is no input I can give. I can do nothing about it.

We plant the seed, but God must give the increase. - 1 Cor 3:6-7

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Does anyone here really believe that infants who die go to hell?

 

[Isolation]

Does anyone here really believe that infants who die go to hell?

Catholics used to believe that
Because they believe they get the remission of sins through the beleivers baptism
So unbaptized infants went to hell

I do believe some baptists believe in this way, I think my grandmother did

 

[Hupomone10]

Bro, if I may reverse the situation on you.

Only if I may reverse it again

If your children grow up and are unwilling to come to God, then there is absolutely nothing you can do it about. No amount of prayer, teaching, private school, home schooling, none of it will matter a hill of beans.

If he's unwilling, then not even God can change his will! So no amount of prayer can help him!

Agreed, almost. (Are you surprised?) We should recognize the things we are powerless over. In the final analysis, when we've done our part as God in His Word directs us to do as parents
"And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart;
and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up." (Deut 6:6)
"Train up a child in the way he should go," (Prov 22:6)

when we have done this, we are powerless over the rest. Powerless over whether he chooses to study in college, powerless over whether he chooses to kill someone, powerless over whether he chooses to follow Christ.
But that presupposes you did the above. Not that it's any guarantee, but if you didn't, you needn't blame God's failure to elect him. And you should realize you are now powerless over the outcome because you weren't obedient to God in doing the simple things He told us to do and trust Him with the results.

Suddenly you realize that the only hope your child has (or anyone) is that he needs God to do conversion the way 5 pointers believe!

So you would argue that the person who did none of the above,
didn't train their child in a godly environment and didn't teach them the Word,
allowed them to go out with their boyfriends/girlfriends at will, unsupervised, no matter the age,
stay unmonitored on the internet without supervision,
play games all day,
never look in their bedroom or become interested in their lives as to what bizarre things they might be doing,
never become involved in teaching them to choose friends correctly,
that this person can confidently, as confidently as the person who home-schooled their child and taught them "from childhood...the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 3:15), can complacently confidently sit back and trust in some supposed doctrine the 5-pointers teach?

No thanks, my friend. The fact that I paved the way for my child's failure in life by not doing what God explicitely commanded parents to do, will find little comfort running to a doctrine that God might in spite of this arbritrarily choose for no reason, my son and get Him to believe anyway. God might indeed do that, but there's just as equal a chance that He won't so choose. That's no comfort. It's just a belief out of resignation, reaping what you sow.

And, as I said before, we all know that raising him in such a home and being obedient to the Spirit's leading in raising them greatly increases the chance that they will follow the Lord in faith and practice. I have shown that by Scripture and I can support it by statistics and practical experience. How do you explain that by arbitrary election?

And this part:



We plant the seed, but God must give the increase. - 1 Cor 3:6-7

And that's all I'm saying. Couch potatoes trusting in a supposed sovereignty of God and God regenerating their children will be sad consolation on that Day when they find out the stark truth that you have just included in this verse that there were things God expressly told them to do.

Yes, brother, I'm sorry it has to be this way, but as the verse you included indicates, there is a part for you and a part that God does. Sovereign God chose and instituted it that way, and He will not change it just because we convince ourselves of certain doctrines that should be obviously wrong to the open-eyed person.

To end on a softer note, I think you may be mistaking me for a person who believes in the sovereignty of the will. I do not. I believe in a sovereign God who actively involves men in the working out of the process, both of salvation and of living the Christian life. In the end, we only follow the Spirit and then should pray and leave the results, no rather, actively trust the results, in God's hands. This neither passively trusts in a doctrine to bail them out, nor trusts in the ability of man. Not the way I understand it, anyway.

God bless,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

Catholics used to believe that
Because they believe they get the remission of sins through the beleivers baptism
So unbaptized infants went to hell

I do believe some baptists believe in this way, I think my grandmother did

What do you mean "they used to believe that?" Did the infallible magisterium teach that, or not?

If they did, and the teaching of the church (RCC) cannot be wrong, then it must still be taught.

Otherwise, this would mean that infallible doctrine can change.

I'm sure you misunderstood. Or maybe only babies back then went to hell. ?

 

[Skala]

Where did you get the idea that I said it would be ok to sit back and do nothing at all?

I was talking about the idea that we are helpless to make someone willing to embrace Christ, and only God can intervene at that point. All Christians pray for God to save their loved ones, so deep down all Christians believe in Irresistible Grace.

How many times have you heard this in a prayer after a church sermon?: "Lord, please open the eyes and hearts of any unbelievers present"/

That prayer is 100% pure "Calvinism".

The bottom line is only God can do conversion. He makes the unwilling, willing, by his grace. Every Christian knows it. The Christians that deny the doctrine of "Irresistible Grace" are being inconsistent.

 

[Isolation]

What do you mean "they used to believe that?" Did the infallible magisterium teach that, or not?

If they did, and the teaching of the church (RCC) cannot be wrong, then it must still be taught.

Otherwise, this would mean that infallible doctrine can change.

I'm sure you misunderstood. Or maybe only babies back then went to hell. ?

I am pretty sure Catholicism used to teach that, but changed their view on it. It is no longer taught I believe

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I don't know one single Baptist pastor who would tell a grieving mother of a dead infant that her child might be in hell. That is ridiculous.

 

[AndOne]

Recent Biblical scholarship has already made Calvinism an endangered species, and the growing awareness and acceptance of this scholarship is bringing Calvinism to extinction. As a consequence, we are seeing today a greatly renewed interest in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers who lived and taught before the Church and Her theology became contaminated with the traditions of men and systems of theology that contradict the message of the New Testament. The doctrine of the age of accountability directly contradicts the doctrines of original sin and justification by faith and should have no place in our Baptist churches.

You might want to look around - Calvinism is most certainly not an endangered speicies... You might want to look at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for starters. One of the premier Baptist seminaries in the country happens to be thoroughly Calvinist in their sotoreiology...

 

[AndOne]

Theologians??? I was referring to scholars of the Biblical languages, linguists, archeologists, anthropologists, historians, and other scholars who during the past 150 years have contributed a wealth of previously unknown pertinent information to Old and New Testament exegesis that is not marred and distorted by a man-made, sixteenth-century system of theology based upon inadequate and often very wrong information.

Which ones?