Are we born justified?

[Samie]

AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY

Numbers 14:31 'Your children, however, whom you said would become a prey-- I will bring them in, and they will know the land which you have rejected. (NAU)

Those "little ones" (KJV translation) were all those under 20 years old.   It appears that the LORD's "age of accountability" is 19 and younger. 

​KJV Deuteronomy 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.

It appears to me that those "little ones" (Greek paidi,on not neani,skoj) are those who have no knowledge between good and evil.

 

[Samie]

In this post, Rev 21:17 is a typo. It should be Rev 21:27.

[pnattmbtc]

You're saying you don't believe there are any wicked children before the age of accountability?  Really?

This seems impossible to me.  Let's throw out an age of accountability.  How about 8 years old.  Does that work for you?

​I believe, it's God Who can determine the age of accountability of anyone. We don't grow up with the same rate of understanding things. Let's just leave to Him to determine whether one has grown into the age of accountability or not.

I'm having a conversation with you.  What age would you think of as the age of accountability?  I'm suggesting 8 years old.  Does that work for you?  Or would you like to suggest a different age? 

[pnattmbtc]

Samie:Again, for nth time, we all are born with our names in the book of life.

This is just an idea of yours.  Repeating an idea n times doesn't make it any more true.  It can't be true, for reasons I've explained, also for reasons I've not explained.

Samie:If one dies before the age of accountability, his name is retained in the book of life, based on this statement of our Creator:

"Retained" doesn't make sense here.  It's just there.  It doesn't need to be "retained."

Samie:ESV Deuteronomy 1:39 And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

If one grows into and past the age of accountability, his name is retained when he dies if he has overcome evil with good while alive, otherwise, his name is blotted out.

There is no reason to think that just because one has reached the age of accountability, only at that point does he need to start overcoming evil.  To put it another way, there is not a set age at which one can start overcoming evil, which is one point at which your argument falls apart.  You seem to have the assumption that if one cannot discren between good and evil, one cannot overcome evil, but there's no evidence that this is the case.

Consider the Canaanites.  The Isralites were told to destroy all of them, even the little children.  Why all the Canaanities?  Because they were all wicked.  We have precident in Scripture that God makes special effort to save the innocent (consider, e.g., the account of Lot and Sodom).  So even though there will children before the age of accountability, they were still wicked.

Wicked people raise wicked children, and righteous people raise righteous children (of course, there can be exceptions to this, but this is the general case).  So when Isiah saw children in the new earth, it was a class of children, the children of righteous parents.  Isaiah didn't see Canaanite chlidren on the new earth.

If you consider a young Canaanite child, say 71/2 years old, before the age of accountability (assuming that's 8), this child would have raised to be wicked all its life, and would have been steeped in the ways of a wicked culture.  How could such a child, whose mind had never been trained in the ways of heaven, be happy in heaven?  God would have to change its mind, which contradicts the principle of free will.  There is no mechanism by which the character can be changed between death and arriving in heaven, which is another place where your idea fails.

[Robert]

 

I'm having a conversation with you.  What age would you think of as the age of accountability?  I'm suggesting 8 years old.  Does that work for you?  Or would you like to suggest a different age? 

​You are being obnoxious....Samie gave you an answer.....  

[Robert]

Consider the Canaanites.  The Isralites were told to destroy all of them, even the little children.  Why all the Canaanities?  Because they were all wicked.

Matt 7:9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 

10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 

11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 

 

And, BTW, Jesus speaks against this "eye of an eye":  Matt 5:3

8 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 

39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. ....

43"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 

44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 

45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 

 

[pnattmbtc]

Matt 7:9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 

10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 

11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 

 

And, BTW, Jesus speaks against this "eye of an eye":  Matt 5:3

8 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 

39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. ....

43"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 

44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 

45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 

 

​When you cite texts without providing any reason for doing so, you leave it to the reader to try to read your mind.  Since you put "being evil" in red, I'll assume your citing of this text has something to do with that.  I will further guess that you are arguing that since Jesus addressed his hearers as "being evil", and they would be in heaven, then it follows that wicked Canaanite children will also be in heaven.  It's actually quite difficult to produce some sort of argument which would be a response to my point from this text, but that's my attempt.

If this is your argument, one could just as well argue from this text that all wicked people will be taken to heaven.

I agree with Jesus regarding "eye for eye".  I believe, as the Spirit of Prophecy points out, that force is not a principle of God's government.

[Samie]

This is just an idea of yours.  Repeating an idea n times doesn't make it any more true.  It can't be true, for reasons I've explained, also for reasons I've not explained.

​ Well, that's according to you and you haven't even provided any Scripture. I have provided Scriptures. Between your statements and that of Scriptures', I'd settle for the latter.

[Samie]

"Retained" doesn't make sense here.  It's just there.  It doesn't need to be "retained."

What does not make sense is to retain something that is not even there.

[Robert]

I agree with Jesus regarding "eye for eye".  I believe, as the Spirit of Prophecy points out, that force is not a principle of God's government.

​Killing men, women and children (including infants) and then stating that these children are therefore wicked justifies genocide?  If, as you say (and I agree), "that force is not a principle of God's government", then you have a problem with your own Biblical quote. Furthermore it justifies killing "the wicked" in the name of God.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Robert

[Samie]

There is no reason to think that just because one has reached the age of accountability, only at that point does he need to start overcoming evil.  To put it another way, there is not a set age at which one can start overcoming evil, which is one point at which your argument falls apart.  You seem to have the assumption that if one cannot discren between good and evil, one cannot overcome evil, but there's no evidence that this is the case.

​How can those who haven't reached the age of accountability who have no knowledge between good and evil overcome evil they don't even know? Can you overcome in a battle you are not engaged in? Make sense, please.

[Robert]

​How can those who haven't reached the age of accountability who have no knowledge between good and evil overcome evil they don't even know? Can you overcome in a battle you are not engaged in? Make sense, please.

​Pnattmbtc doesn't get it....He doesn't understand the principle "where there is no law neither is there any transgression".  He must, then, buy into the Catholic version of "original sin" which states we are born guilty of sin even though we have no concept of sin, much less anything else, as infants.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

​Killing men, women and children (including infants) and then stating that these children are therefore wicked justifies genocide?  If, as you say (and I agree), "that force is not a principle of God's government", then you have a problem with your own Biblical quote. Furthermore it justifies killing "the wicked" in the name of God.​

Three verses to ponder:

1] 1 Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' 

2]  "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 9 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 

3]  2 They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. 3 They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. 

 

[Samie]

Consider the Canaanites.  The Isralites were told to destroy all of them, even the little children.  Why all the Canaanities?  Because they were all wicked.  We have precident in Scripture that God makes special effort to save the innocent (consider, e.g., the account of Lot and Sodom).  So even though there will children before the age of accountability, they were still wicked.

Any verse in the Bible saying there are wicked children among those before the age of accountability?  Ohh, yes. If I remember right, you said there's none. So why insist?

And speaking of Canaanites, why do you think did Jesus choose a Canaanite as one of the Twelve?

[Samie]

Wicked people raise wicked children, and righteous people raise righteous children (of course, there can be exceptions to this, but this is the general case). So when Isiah saw children in the new earth, it was a class of children, the children of righteous parents.  Isaiah didn't see Canaanite chlidren on the new earth.

​You have a verse for this? None? Are you then trying to convince me to believe what you say even without basis in Scriptures?

 

[Samie]

 

If you consider a young Canaanite child, say 71/2 years old, before the age of accountability (assuming that's 8), this child would have raised to be wicked all its life, and would have been steeped in the ways of a wicked culture.  How could such a child, whose mind had never been trained in the ways of heaven, be happy in heaven?  God would have to change its mind, which contradicts the principle of free will.  There is no mechanism by which the character can be changed between death and arriving in heaven, which is another place where your idea fails.

​You have not provided even one single text to back up what you're saying. Your reasoning seems to be all based on assumptions.

[Stan]

 

​You have not provided even one single text to back up what you're saying. Your reasoning seems to be all based on assumptions.

​This is a discussion board. People discuss thoughts and ideas.

[Samie]

And I thought an Adventist discussion board, especially this one - Theological Townhall, should base discussions upon Scriptures, which I believe is the basis of Adventist Theology.

[Robert]

....Theological Townhall, should base discussions upon Scriptures, which I believe is the basis of Adventist Theology.

​I agree

[Ron Lambert]

I must again cite Romans 5:18 (NKJV): "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life." This plainly implies that in order to save any humans, Christ had to save the entire human race, by taking all humanity into Himself. Thus: "...our old man was crucified with Him...." All our sins have been paid for. ALL! This is not something that will happen for us if we repent. This is stated past tense. It is something that has already been done for us in Christ, 2,000 years ago.

This is why the gospel is such good news. Humanity has been redeemed. We are saved! God leaves it to each of us to accept this, but we are not saved because we accept this, rather we accept this because we are already saved. In other words, the only people who will be lost are those who reject their salvation. Of course our response to the grace of God must develop until it is truly whole-hearted--we must allow Jesus to become the Lord of our lives so He can make effective for us the salvation He has already obtained for us. Otherwise we could make our rejection of His saving grace the final choice of our lives. God could not have gone any further to make salvation available to all of us, so that we have the best possible chance to be with Him in Eternity.

Because of these basic Bible principles of salvation, it is logical to conclude that all children are born in the default state of saved. That does not mean they are not still born with a sinful nature--that is, a nature that is inherently bent toward selfishness and rebellion. But until a child has reached the age of accountability where he or she is able to decide for himself what to do with the grace of God, that child is the property of God. Jesus paid for him or her.

Some might ask why God does not remove the sinful nature from us when we first come to Him and bow before the Cross of Calvary. Or choose the Goodness of God, however it may be presented to us as a choice in our lives. The simple answer is that God wishes to make it clear that sin and righteousness before God are not a matter of anything in the flesh, but rather of faith in the Goodness of God. After all, Adam and Eve had perfect, sinless natures when they chose to disobey God and fell into sin. So nature is not the answer. Just giving us sinless natures would not be the permanent solution. For that matter, Lucifer had a sinless nature when he chose to embrace sin and led a rebellion against God. Thus as Ellen G. White said: "Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God." (Signs of the Times, Dec. 30, 1889) Notice that she said "in earth OR HEAVEN." Even the angels and inhabitants of other worlds who have never fallen, have security only by looking to the Lamb of God. All the universe will be rendered secure, only as it is universally understood that God alone is the One Who is truly Good, and only by looking to Him and living in harmony with Him, may we be accepted. For this reason, the testimony that the Redeemed of earth will be able to give to the intelligent inhabitants of the rest of the universe, will always be of intense interest to them. Thus we may have a part to play in seeing to it that sin never arises again.

 

[pnattmbtc]

This is just an idea of yours.  Repeating an idea n times doesn't make it any more true.  It can't be true, for reasons I've explained, also for reasons I've not explained.

​ Well, that's according to you and you haven't even provided any Scripture. I have provided Scriptures. Between your statements and that of Scriptures', I'd settle for the latter.

What I have maintained is that I agree with Ellen White in her assertion that this is not a subject upon which light has given; i.e., there are no Scripture texts to be given.  So I can't give scripture texts if they aren't there, right?  Similarly, if she is correct, you can't either.  And, judged by the texts you've provided, I'd have to agree with her, because a text where Jesus says, "Allow the little children come to me" is in no way dealing with the subject as to whether or not babies are born with their names written in the book of heaven.

However, when I am making arguments based on Scripture, I have presented texts.

Also, this just seems argumentative.  What does is have to do with the subject at hand?  What you've cut out here is a very small part of a fairly long post where I developed the reasons, both old and new, for which I was rejecting your idea.

[pnattmbtc]

 

​You have not provided even one single text to back up what you're saying. Your reasoning seems to be all based on assumptions.

​

If you consider a young Canaanite child, say 71/2 years old, before the age of accountability (assuming that's 8), this child would have raised to be wicked all its life, and would have been steeped in the ways of a wicked culture.  How could such a child, whose mind had never been trained in the ways of heaven, be happy in heaven?  God would have to change its mind, which contradicts the principle of free will.  There is no mechanism by which the character can be changed between death and arriving in heaven, which is another place where your idea fails.

​You have not provided even one single text to back up what you're saying. Your reasoning seems to be all based on assumptions.

The argument was based on Scripture saying that the Israelites were to destroy all the Canaanities.  I assumed you were aware that this was in Scripture. 

[pnattmbtc]

I agree with Jesus regarding "eye for eye".  I believe, as the Spirit of Prophecy points out, that force is not a principle of God's government.

Robert:​Killing men, women and children (including infants) and then stating that these children are therefore wicked justifies genocide?

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.  I said nothing about genocide, or justifying genocide.  All I said was the the children were wicked; nothing more.  I don't understand what you're trying to say with your question.  

 If, as you say (and I agree), "that force is not a principle of God's government", then you have a problem with your own Biblical quote.

If you agree with me, then wouldn't you have the same problem?

Furthermore it justifies killing "the wicked" in the name of God.

Is this what you think?  I don't know what point you're trying to make.  Are you disagreeing with me?  It seems not, since you said "and I agree".

Edited 4 hours ago by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

​Pnattmbtc doesn't get it....He doesn't understand the principle "where there is no law neither is there any transgression".  He must, then, buy into the Catholic version of "original sin" which states we are born guilty of sin even though we have no concept of sin, much less anything else, as infants.

Robert, do you not think it's possible for someone to disagree with you for some other reason than they don't get it?  Do you think if there weren't a law, there wouldn't be any problem?  This of our society.  If we got rid of our laws, would that make everything ok?  Murders, robberies, etc. would no longer be an issue?

The law is a tool to bring the problem to light, which is not a legal problem per se, but a problem upon which the law sheds light.  It doesn't create the problem, but helps to solve the problem by driving a person to Christ, where He can find righteousness.

It's interesting that you mention the concept of original sin, because I was just thinking of how that ties into your view.  Your view develops from Reformationist Theology,  which accepts only imputed righteousness, because, according to this theology, it is not possible for any person, apart from Christ, to do anything but sin, because all acts are tainted by original sin.  This is where the concept of separating imparted righteousness from justification by faith came from.

Consider the following statement:

The law requires righteousness,--a righteous life, a perfect character; and this man has not to give. He cannot meet the claims of God's holy law. But Christ, coming to the earth as man, lived a holy life, and developed a perfect character. These He offers as a free gift to all who will receive them. His life stands for the life of men. Thus they have remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. More than this, Christ imbues men with the attributes of God. He builds up the human character after the similitude of the divine character, a goodly fabric of spiritual strength and beauty. Thus the very righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the believer in Christ. God can "be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Rom. 3:26.

It is because I *don't* agree with the concept of original sin that I can agree with this statement.  However, Reformationist Theology cannot agree with this statement, because it does agree with original sin.

Do you agree with the above statement? 

[pnattmbtc]

There is no reason to think that just because one has reached the age of accountability, only at that point does he need to start overcoming evil.  To put it another way, there is not a set age at which one can start overcoming evil, which is one point at which your argument falls apart.  You seem to have the assumption that if one cannot discren between good and evil, one cannot overcome evil, but there's no evidence that this is the case.

​How can those who haven't reached the age of accountability who have no knowledge between good and evil overcome evil they don't even know? Can you overcome in a battle you are not engaged in? Make sense, please.

It makes perfect sense.  Little children can overcome evil because they are given power by God, and because of how they have been trained.  Do you not believe that Jesus Christ as a young child overcame evil?