On the contrary, there are several Scriptures which teach the exact opposite, such as Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3.
The one I want to look at now is Proverbs 20:11: "Even a child makes himself known by his acts, by whether his conduct is pure and upright."
Notice that Solomon here doesn't even say that we see the nature of the child, but rather that his nature is revealed by his actions. That is exactly the same as the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:18-20: "What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person." Both passages tell us that external actions are not what makes the sinner, but rather the heart that produces those actions. We are not sinners because we sin; rather, we sin because we are sinners.
And Solomon tells us that the heart of the child, whether it is upright or sinful, is also revealed in his actions. That necessarily precludes any supposed sinlessness in children. That doctrine is manmade sentimentality, not a biblical principle.
This is my question to anyone who holds that children aren't sinful, or are not culpable for their sin: Why don't you kill your children before your age of accountability? After all, if they are truly held to be sinless, then killing them now would guarantee that they would go to heaven, wouldn't it? The fact that you don't do so demonstrates to me that you don't really believe what you're saying. And that is often the case. A person's theology of the heart is often better than is his theology of profession.
4 comments:
2 Samuel 12:23 gives evidence that there is an age at which children are not judged by the law. The age of David's child is not known; what is known is that David wept, fasted, and prayed that God would spare his child. Once the child died, David knew that he would see him again.
We do not kill our children in order to guarantee their ascendancy to heaven because that is a violation of the sixth commandment.
In 2 Samuel 12 we read that David's child by Bathsheba was stricken and lay dying. David fasted, wept, and prayed, that God would spare the child. When he died, David began eating again, saying, "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." Clearly, David knew he would see his son again in heaven. The age of the boy is not known, but it is apparent that the boy would not be judged under the law, as all who are without Christ are. It seems to me that there is an age under which God holds the child blameless, and I believe that depends on the individual. Are the mentally infirm automatically damned simply because they cannot understand the gospel as presented? Maybe, but God is sovereign and will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.
As for the ludicrous question - why we wouldn't kill our children so they would go immediately to heaven: That would violate the sixth commandment at a minimum, but would also be an affront to God's sovereignty, essentially trying to find a loophole in His justice.
That passage doesn't address the matter. There is no suggestion there that David's son went to Heaven because he wasn't a sinner. he went because of God's faithfulness to His covenant, according to which the children of believers belong to Him, and are generally reckoned federally holy with their believing parents (I Corinthians 7:14).
I am surprised that Dave called your question ludicrous as sadly that is one of the disingenuous excuses used at abortuaries when the women are asked why - we sometimes get the response because the child will go to heaven because it has not yet sinned.
Post a Comment