The ONLY Biblical answer to The Age of Accountability

[Derf]

I am not following your argument. Adam died as soon as he ate the fruit. He was not immediately buried because his death was not physical but spiritual. When an innocent baby dies it is physical, not spiritual. Have you put these two facts together yet? I am not seeing it if you have.

Where in the bible does it say Adam died spiritually that day? And where does God say, "If you eat of the wrong tree, you will die spiritually"? Rather, He said, "If you eat of the wrong tree, ...you will die the death." Or "...dying thou dost die." Or "...you will surely die." I couldn't find any versions where God said, "...you will die spiritually."

Neither have I found any passages where it distinguishes the type of death babies die compared to the kind Adam died. So where shall I find these facts you're trying to get me to put together?

 

[Derf]

I never replied to this one.

In Adam every sinner will die once because of inherited sin but no sinner dies the 2nd death because of another person's sin. Babies inherit the sin of Adam and the sentence of death that goes along with it.

Definition of "sentence"
the punishment assigned to a defendant found guilty by a court, or fixed by law for a particular offense.

So you seem to be at odds with yourself When you said this

nobody is condemned to death by God for someone else's sins.

Do you see the conundrum you've put yourself in?

Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


Yes.

My wife and I raised 8 babies. They come forth from the womb sinners, not saints. I have no reason to believe God worded Psalm 58:3 incorrectly.

Then it sounds like you think your babies all deserved death immediately upon birth, if not earlier, right? Or if any had died, it could have been for their own sin?
(Please forgive me if you lost any of your children, and this line of questioning is emotionally painful. My wife and I lost several to miscarriage. And praise God you were willing to raise 8 children. I hope they are all abiding in Christ.)

I am commanded by God both to love my parents and to hate my parents. When I have trouble understanding God's 'dark sayings,' I simply go to Him and ask for Him to show me what He means. I believe I do understand what it means to hate everyone else when it comes to ignoring or dismissing them if they interfere with my duty to please and serve God.

Which is more than the passage says, so you recognize that the passage saying to hate your mother and father was hyperbole, right? That compared with your love for Christ, your love for parents must pale?

So if we apply that concept back into the previously mentioned passage, then
If God says the wicked begin lying as soon as they emerge from the womb, yet babies don't talk as soon as they emerge from the womb, you can see that the language is hyperbole, right?

5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

Proverbs 1
6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

Yes, it's good to get counsel to help us understand God's more mysterious passages.

 

[marke]

Where in the bible does it say Adam died spiritually that day? And where does God say, "If you eat of the wrong tree, you will die spiritually"? Rather, He said, "If you eat of the wrong tree, ...you will die the death." Or "...dying thou dost die." Or "...you will surely die." I couldn't find any versions where God said, "...you will die spiritually."

Neither have I found any passages where it distinguishes the type of death babies die compared to the kind Adam died. So where shall I find these facts you're trying to get me to put together?

You seem stuck on the idea that there is only one type of death in the Bible. I don't agree.

 

[marke]

I never replied to this one.

Definition of "sentence"
the punishment assigned to a defendant found guilty by a court, or fixed by law for a particular offense.

So you seem to be at odds with yourself When you said this


Do you see the conundrum you've put yourself in?

Then it sounds like you think your babies all deserved death immediately upon birth, if not earlier, right? Or if any had died, it could have been for their own sin?
(Please forgive me if you lost any of your children, and this line of questioning is emotionally painful. My wife and I lost several to miscarriage. And praise God you were willing to raise 8 children. I hope they are all abiding in Christ.)

Which is more than the passage says, so you recognize that the passage saying to hate your mother and father was hyperbole, right? That compared with your love for Christ, your love for parents must pale?

So if we apply that concept back into the previously mentioned passage, then
If God says the wicked begin lying as soon as they emerge from the womb, yet babies don't talk as soon as they emerge from the womb, you can see that the language is hyperbole, right?

Yes, it's good to get counsel to help us understand God's more mysterious passages.

God does not condemn the children for the sins of the fathers any more than He saves the sons of fathers who get saved because the fathers get saved

 

[marke]

Then it sounds like you think your babies all deserved death immediately upon birth, if not earlier, right? Or if any had died, it could have been for their own sin?
(Please forgive me if you lost any of your children, and this line of questioning is emotionally painful. My wife and I lost several to miscarriage. And praise God you were willing to raise 8 children. I hope they are all abiding in Christ.)

You seem to think when people die it is because they deserve to die or they die for the sins of others who deserve to die. Where did you get the idea that babies only die because they or someone else deserves to die?

Which is more than the passage says, so you recognize that the passage saying to hate your mother and father was hyperbole, right? That compared with your love for Christ, your love for parents must pale?

So if we apply that concept back into the previously mentioned passage, then
If God says the wicked begin lying as soon as they emerge from the womb, yet babies don't talk as soon as they emerge from the womb, you can see that the language is hyperbole, right?

Yes, it's good to get counsel to help us understand God's more mysterious passages.

God was not exaggerating when He said all humans are born in sin.

 

[JudgeRightly]

the English language has changed to a degree that makes the KJV completely outdated and obsolete.

Completely outdated, yes.

But obsolete it is not. It still serves as an important anchor and teaching tool in and for Christian history, and even history in general. The archaic English is (mostly) not helpful to modern English speakers, though the usage of "thee" "thou" "thy" and "ye" certainly is something that is lacking in modern English, which has replaced them with "you" and "your," which doesn't quite get the nuance of the former words across, since "you" is both singular and plural.

@Right Divider

 

[Derf]

Completely outdated, yes.

Not completely outdated. Most of the terms are still used today in the same way, but not all, certainly.

But obsolete it is not. It still serves as an important anchor and teaching tool in and for Christian history, and even history in general. The archaic English is (mostly) not helpful to modern English speakers, though the usage of "thee" "thou" "thy" and "ye" certainly is something that is lacking in modern English, which has replaced them with "you" and "your," which doesn't quite get the nuance of the former words across, since "you" is both singular and plural.

"Y'all" and "all y'all" could be substituted, don't you think?

 

[Clete]

You would have hated the original Hebrew (no vowels or punctuation or chapter or verse) or Greek (no punctuation, chapter, or verse), if you don't like missing the paragraphs.

I doubt that it would have bothered me. I wouldn't have had any exposure to anything else because it was a common practice at the time because copies had to be made by hand and the practice also allowed for better copy error detection.

Also, any manuscripts that had no vowels or punctuation would have been a copies, not the originals. That doesn't really impact your point but I'm just pointing it out for the sake of accuracy.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not completely outdated. Most of the terms are still used today in the same way, but not all, certainly.

It's a way of speaking that isn't used anymore, except in specific circumstances.

"Y'all" and "all y'all" could be substituted, don't you think?

"Y'all" is just "you all," and is slang.

"Ye" "thee" "thou" "thy" etc., were an attempt to maintain the distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns and verb forms from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.

In other words, it was an attempt to preserve the grammar. We don't use those words today in modern versions of the Bible because most people wouldn't even know the difference between the words, even though they're more precise than "you" or "your."

 

[Clete]

Are you saying death is not a curse or a suffering? Or are you saying God originally planned for us all to die?

We are NOT under a curse any longer!

Calling it names doesn't really make the doctrine any more or less true.

But it does make it easier to identify and harder for people to sneak around defending it without calling attention to what it is they're actually defending. It is only the dishonest who dislike labels.

I don't hold to the part of original sin where nobody has the ability to respond to the gospel unless God first regenerates him,

That doctrine has NOTHING to do with "original sin". That's "total depravity", a Calvinist doctrine that is equally blasphemous. Original sin is a Catholic doctrine that has been around a lot longer than Calvinism and it teaches that God punishes people for the sins of their ancestors.

but I do hold to the part where everybody needs a savior.

Not because of Adam's sin they don't - not anymore!

That's precise what Romans 5 is about. We do not need a savior until "the commandment comes, sin revives and we die" (Romans 7:9), for "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." (Ezekiel 18:20)

Are you saying there are people out there that don't need a savior? Is that more biblical than what I wrote?

Children are people and are not yet lost. Even still, Jesus is their Savior so long as you're using the term in keeping with Romans 5. Adam's rebellion had real consequences for the race and had Jesus not done His work at Calvary, there would be no hope for anyone descended from the fallen Adam. It's a situation where trite comments don't work because you have to understand the context of what you're talking about in order to remain on the same page that God is on. Indeed, it is only because God had Calvary planned in advance that He even allowed Adam and Eve to live long enough to reproduce at all. Without that plan in place, He would have justly ended it right then and there.

Imagine how amazing it must be going to be for us to spend eternity with God if God understood that all the suffering, death, pain and wickedness of this world, along with the death of His Son was a price worth paying to gain that eternal relationship with even a tiny percentage of us humans who would respond to Him in faith.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Completely outdated, yes.

But obsolete it is not. It still serves as an important anchor and teaching tool in and for Christian history, and even history in general. The archaic English is (mostly) not helpful to modern English speakers, though the usage of "thee" "thou" "thy" and "ye" certainly is something that is lacking in modern English, which has replaced them with "you" and "your," which doesn't quite get the nuance of the former words across, since "you" is both singular and plural.

@Right Divider

Yeah, okay. I don't disagree with you there except that my comments were made in the context of just normal folks doing normal bible reading and preaching sermons to regular folks. If your using the KJV for some scholarly purpose such as the study of the English language in the 17th century or a study on what impact the KJV had on the history of the English language and the whole of English speaking society or how the KJV relates to the original biblical languages or any other such thing then that's totally terrific. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
My problem comes when someone tries to even imply that the KJV is even close to being "the perfectly preserved word of God". It very simply isn't even close to perfect. Indeed, its not even superior to modern translations such as the New King James, which, in addition to being far more readable, is an actual first order translation from the original languages rather than an edited compilation of previous translations.
And, while I know that you know this already, JR, for others who might be reading this, the NKJV isn't perfect either nor is it even possible for a translation to be perfect. The scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit and was precisely what God wanted written down by the original authors and has since been sufficiently preserved to perform its intended function.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yeah, okay. I don't disagree with you there except that my comments were made in the context of just normal folks doing normal bible reading and preaching sermons to regular folks. If your using the KJV for some scholarly purpose such as the study of the English language in the 17th century or a study on what impact the KJV had on the history of the English language and the whole of English speaking society or how the KJV relates to the original biblical languages or any other such thing then that's totally terrific. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Exactly the "specific circumstances" (from my post in the other thread) I was thinking of, haha!

My problem comes when someone tries to even imply that the KJV is even close to being "the perfectly preserved word of God". It very simply isn't even close to perfect. Indeed, its not even superior to modern translations such as the New King James, which, in addition to being far more readable, is an actual first order translation from the original languages rather than an edited compilation of previous translations.

Agreed!

And, while I know that you know this already, JR, for others who might be reading this, the NKJV isn't perfect either nor is it even possible for a translation to be perfect. The scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit and was precisely what God wanted written down by the original authors and has since been sufficiently preserved to perform its intended function.

Indeed.

 

[Right Divider]

Completely outdated, yes.

"Completely" outdated? No, most of the English is perfectly understandable today.

But obsolete it is not. It still serves as an important anchor and teaching tool in and for Christian history, and even history in general. The archaic English is (mostly) not helpful to modern English speakers, though the usage of "thee" "thou" "thy" and "ye" certainly is something that is lacking in modern English, which has replaced them with "you" and "your," which doesn't quite get the nuance of the former words across, since "you" is both singular and plural.

This is a very valuable feature of the KJV that is totally lost in all other English translations (to my knowledge).

 

[Right Divider]

We are NOT under a curse any longer!

We are still under the curse that God put on "the ground" (i.e., all of creation). Gen 3:17
It's not until the fulfillment of Rev. 22:3 that this curse is removed.

 

[Derf]

God does not condemn the children for the sins of the fathers any more than He saves the sons of fathers who get saved because the fathers get saved

What does it mean when Jesus says anyone who doesn't believe is condemned already (John 3)? Babies haven't had a chance to believe, so they are condemned, right? By the way, "condemned" is essentially a synonym of "sentenced".

You seem to think when people die it is because they deserve to die or they die for the sins of others who deserve to die. Where did you get the idea that babies only die because they or someone else deserves to die?

Death wasn't part of the "very good" creation. Death came because one man sinned. It was the sentence, as you called it. All who live long enough to do so join with our father Adam in his sin, but all join in the sentence/punishment.

It was described, afterward, as returning to the dust, because that was what Adam was, before he was made a living soul. If a living soul returns to the dust, and that's what was to happen to Adam, why do we go through such gyrations to say that man stays alive when he does? Shouldn't we rather acknowledge that Jesus came to save us from THAT death?

God was not exaggerating when He said all humans are born in sin.

Are you back to saying babies deserve death? That's what being born in sin means as far as their destiny is concerned.

Or would you like to explain further.

Either way, I don't see how you can get past the point that babies, especially babies in the womb, die (are sentenced/punished) because of someone else's sin.

You seem stuck on the idea that there is only one type of death in the Bible. I don't agree.

It's a side issue, and I've explained that there are two types of death in the bible. Both types deal with the whole person.

I appreciated and agree with your description earlier in the thread, where you explained that people die the first death for sins, and the second death for rejecting the Holy Spirit's prompting to believe in Jesus. But what are we to believe about Jesus? That He rose from the dead! Which death was that? The first kind. And why is that important, since everybody dies that death? That's why Jesus came, to save us from THAT death. It is so horrible that He loved us to much to leave us in that condition. He didn't come to save us from the second death, as it wouldn't be necessary if the first death weren't abolished. It (2nd death) was only for the devil and his angels, originally.

 

[Clete]

We are still under the curse that God put on "the ground" (i.e., all of creation). Gen 3:17
It's not until the fulfillment of Rev. 22:3 that this curse is removed.

The ground may be "cursed" but I am not.

 

[marke]

What does it mean when Jesus says anyone who doesn't believe is condemned already (John 3)? Babies haven't had a chance to believe, so they are condemned, right? By the way, "condemned" is essentially a synonym of "sentenced".

No flesh and blood can enter heaven. That means that the unsaved are under the course, but that does not mean God is holding anyone accountable for sins of ignorance. Nevertheless, sinners must get saved to go to heaven and God draws all sinners to Himself because He is not willing that any should perish. Sinners must come to Jesus when enlightened by the Holy Spirit to come to Him for salvation. Those who refuse will be condemned to hell.

Death wasn't part of the "very good" creation. Death came because one man sinned. It was the sentence, as you called it. All who live long enough to do so join with our father Adam in his sin, but all join in the sentence/punishment.

You should define your words. Do all sinners go to hell because of God's punishment for sins? No.

It was described, afterward, as returning to the dust, because that was what Adam was, before he was made a living soul. If a living soul returns to the dust, and that's what was to happen to Adam, why do we go through such gyrations to say that man stays alive when he does? Shouldn't we rather acknowledge that Jesus came to save us from THAT death?

I am not following. Jesus said that whosoever believeth in Him shall never die.

Are you back to saying babies deserve death? That's what being born in sin means as far as their destiny is concerned.

Every sin does not deserve the death penalty.

Or would you like to explain further.

Either way, I don't see how you can get past the point that babies, especially babies in the womb, die (are sentenced/punished) because of someone else's sin.

Babies die from sickness, disease, deformities, accidents, murder, and other causes. You are hard pressed to try to make every baby's death the result of God's judgment on them for someone's sin.

It's a side issue, and I've explained that there are two types of death in the bible. Both types deal with the whole person.

I appreciated and agree with your description earlier in the thread, where you explained that people die the first death for sins, and the second death for rejecting the Holy Spirit's prompting to believe in Jesus. But what are we to believe about Jesus? That He rose from the dead! Which death was that? The first kind. And why is that important, since everybody dies that death? That's why Jesus came, to save us from THAT death. It is so horrible that He loved us to much to leave us in that condition. He didn't come to save us from the second death, as it wouldn't be necessary if the first death weren't abolished. It (2nd death) was only for the devil and his angels, originally.

I really don't know what you are trying to say here.

 

[Derf]

We are still under the curse that God put on "the ground" (i.e., all of creation). Gen 3:17
It's not until the fulfillment of Rev. 22:3 that this curse is removed.

Actually, I'm not sure we're still under that curse:
Genesis 8:21-22 KJV — And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter seem to be answers to the curse of the ground. And Remember that it probably didn't rain before the flood, and there was some condition of the soil that required either rain to fall or man to till the soil?
Genesis 2:5 KJV — And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

 

[Derf]

I doubt that it would have bothered me. I wouldn't have had any exposure to anything else because it was a common practice at the time because copies had to be made by hand and the practice also allowed for better copy error detection.

Also, any manuscripts that had no vowels or punctuation would have been a copies, not the originals. That doesn't really impact your point but I'm just pointing it out for the sake of accuracy.

Are you saying the originals had punctuation and vowels, but the copies did not? I've never heard anyone suggest that before.

 

[Right Divider]

The ground may be "cursed" but I am not.

Agree, just trying to keep things clear