What is "Age of accountibility"

[ZiSunka]

I usually love John MacArthur, but because of emotions, he missed this one by a long shot. Through one transgression all are condemned. Everyone, including infants, need a Savior.

Why do you assume that if someone disagrees with you that THEY are the one that is wrong? Why do you accuse MacArthur of being too emotional to be correct?

 

[ZiSunka]

13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." 15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there. Matthew 19:13-15

 

[Lockheed]

Why do you assume that if someone disagrees with you that THEY are the one that is wrong?

I don't, usually... however when one clearly denies what Scripture states, what am I supposed to do? Give 'em a hug and say "I'm ok, you're ok"? Let's all go to herchurch.org and have one big happy party.

Why do you accuse MacArthur of being too emotional to be correct?

Cause in this case he seems to ignore the witness of Scripture to appease the emotional needs of unbelieving parents. Rather than accept and believe that people are saved only by faith in Christ he unwittingly allows exceptions.

 

[Lockheed]

13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." 15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there. Matthew 19:13-15

Yah, but kids still have to come to Christ. Many paedobaptists use this verse to claim that since Christ loves kids (and no one says otherwise) that kids should be included in the sign of the covenant...

So I don't think this verse proves their point, MacArthur's, or anyone's except for two things: 1. Christ (and therefore God) love children. 2. "Such is the kingdom of heaven", one must become 'like a child' to be saved, that is they must trust their Father explicitly.

Trying to stuff more into that verse than those concepts, I think, would be improper. Now, that isn't to say one couldn't build on this verse to present a more united appeal one way or the other.

 

[Lockheed]

Shortly after my ordination a family in the church did lose a child 13 days after birth. When they asked if their baby was in heaven I told them that I couldn't honestly answer their question because Scripture isn't clear about that question. I told them that we know that G-d is both completely Holy and Just and that what we could be sure of is that He will do the right thing, no matter what that was.

This is, I believe, the proper response.

 

[ZiSunka]

"for of such is the kingdom of heaven"

So to you Lockheed, this means that one has to be like a child to get into heaven and it says nothing at all about actual children?

 

[ZiSunka]

This is, I believe, the proper response.

What you believe, based on a limited amount of scripture that you take out of context to mean what you have already decided it should mean?

 

[Lockheed]

"for of such is the kingdom of heaven"

So to you Lockheed, this means that one has to be like a child to get into heaven and it says nothing at all about actual children?

That's not what I said. My other posts express that, as a Baptist, I firmly believe God saves whom He wills by His power and grace.

Yet this very verse is used by paedobaptists to claim that infants are included in the New Covenant and therefore should be baptized... surely you're not in agreement with them.

What this verse DOESN'T say is: "all children are saved" or "no children are saved" or "the children of believers are saved"

It says, simply "such is the kingdom of heaven."

 

[Lockheed]

What you believe, based on a limited amount of scripture that you take out of context to mean what you have already decided it should mean?

I ask you to provide evidence to back up your claim or apologize, both to myself and Dmckay vbmenu_register("postmenu_14452518", true); whose view I was in agreement with.

 

[ZiSunka]

I ask you to provide evidence to back up your claim or apologize, both to myself and Dmckay vbmenu_register("postmenu_14452518", true); whose view I was in agreement with.

You have yet to answer my question.

 

[Lockheed]

You have yet to answer my question.

Should I answer a question intended to further your derision of me? Sorry. Find some other punching bag. I'll not toss these pearls.

 

[BBAS 64]

When I went through the inquisition of my Ordination Counsel this question came up. Probably the next 45 minutes defending my answer, because I said that I didn't believe that Scripture teaches an age of accountability. I believe that this is a doctrine that has been formed out of whole cloth by pastors/ministers who copped out on their responsibility to teach from Scripture even on the more difficult topics.

One of the Pastors present asked me, "What about David's assurance that he would see his child in heaven." My response, "I don't believe that we can dogmatically teach a doctrine based on one passage of Scripture uttered by a man in the depths of emotional depression. Especially when there was NO confirmation mentioned from the Lord that David was correct.

The idea mentioned earlier was brought up about those under the age of Joshua and Caleb not being judged was proof of an age of accountability. I pointed out that there in no indication that there was anything special about their age. Paul wrote to Timothy, "let no man despise thy youth..." when Timothy was probably around 35 years old, and that considering that, those under the age of Joshua and Caleb were probably given a measure of grace because of Joshua and Caleb's faithfulness.

Then they tried the tactic of asking, "Are you saying that if you have a young couple in your church lose one of their children as a baby you're going to tell them that their child is in hell because it died before it had a chance to accept Christ?" I told them, "No! But, neither am I going to lie to them and tell them that they can be sure that their child is in heaven because of some doctrine that doesn't have Scriptural support."

Then I asked them, why do you preach and teach against abortion if you are so convinced that a baby that dies automatically goes to heaven? Wouldn't that mean that you should support abortion because it assures that more will be in heaven?

Shortly after my ordination a family in the church did lose a child 13 days after birth. When they asked if their baby was in heaven I told them that I couldn't honestly answer their question because Scripture isn't clear about that question. I told them that we know that G-d is both completely Holy and Just and that what we could be sure of is that He will do the right thing, no matter what that was.

At the graveside service, there were tears and grief over the loss. but it was subdued and controlled. A short distance from the graveside the was another young couple sitting at the side of a grave. (I should have mentioned that this area of the cemetary was exclusively for babies) During the entire graveside service this couple were placing flowers and toys on this other grave. Both were crying uncontrollably.
Later, out of curiosity I went over to the other grave to see how long it had been since they had lost their child that they were still so unconsolable. Their baby had died more than 6 years previous to their display of grief.

Good Day, Dmckay

I am quickly comming to this view my self as the op has gone unanswered for the most part.

Peace to u,

Bill