The Berean Method ...And Other Stuff

Goodbye, Farewell, Blogger

2007-01-27T10:41:00.000-08:00

Hello All

It has been a fun time on blogger; writing posts, looking at you guy's comments, and everything. However, as many of you who have dealt with Blogger before know, it isn't very user-friendly. Infact, it can be down right confusing. But now, I have been made new, I have discovered WordPress. It is another blog server that is way easier to use, not to mention it looks way cooler!

I have transfered all my previous posts and comments over to my new site and will continue blogging on that.

You can see it at...

www.bereanmethod.wordpress.com

So as far as this site goes...

So long... Farewell... I bid you all adieu...

uh, I can't remember the rest of that Sound of Music song, but you get the idea.

seeya

Caleb

Response to Comments on the "Incompatibility..." Post

2007-01-14T20:24:00.000-08:00

I got two comments on my last post, and since I can't respond to them personally, I have decided to respond to them in a post. Also, both of these individuals basically said the same thing with different words. Here is comment 1:

Caleb, you've once again struck with a fascinating blog, and once again, I struggle with your logic. You state very clear that with man's evil nature, he cannot make the right choice, but that analogy doesn't really follow in things we know to be true. For example, a sinner, when faced with the choice of spending his money gambling or giving to a charity, may in some cases do the right thing. A non-believer may go to a church instead of joining a cult. You get the picture; just because man is bound to his sinful nature does not mean that he will make the wrong choice every time.

Here is comment 2:

I look at the logic of free will this way... A person is looking for something to eat, there are two meals available:

1. a stack of pizzas with everything on them and a few bottled beverages of the carbonated variety to choose from, 2. platters of fruit and vegetables and bottles of the purest spring water.

His gluttonous nature desires the "more enjoyable" meal - pizza and soda, but he decides to pick the meal that is healthy for him and what may be the "more enjoyable" meal to his taste buds- the fruit, vegetables, and water. No matter what his nature may be, he has the ability to choose whichever meal he desires to choose, the one that is bad for him, i.e. the world's way of life, or the one that is good for him, i.e. the way of life- Jesus Christ. After examining yours and Mr. Wesleys' viewpoints/arguments i would have to side with him on this issue.

Before I begin to answer these comments, here's some things to point out. First, despite the fact that I had numerous Scriptures supporting my post, neither of these individuals used a single verse to support anything they said. Second, I never talked about people never making a right choice due to their nature, as commenter 1 said. My post was regarding the decision of salvation, not decisions about spending and eating or any other choice.

Now, on to the real answer. The underlying premise in both of these comments is the belief that when a person, unbeliever or not, makes a "good" decision over a "bad" decision, he is somehow acting outside his sinful nature. Otherwise, he would eat junk food and gamble as their analogies put it. I must ask, "How do eating choices and spending choices relate to salvation?" Both commenters concluded that since people can choose the better option in earthly matters, they then have the ability to choose the better option in the choice of salvation. This is a vast misunderstanding of the Biblical definition of sin, blatantly stated by the verses quoted in the original post. A unbelieving person could spend his life giving 75% of his income to charity and never let an unhealthy bite enter his body, and at the end of the day, he is still a "slave to sin" (Rom. 6:20), and his "good" choices are like "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6).

At the core, we are not sinners because we make wrong choices and commit sins. We are sinners because we are concieved in sin (Psalm 51:5) and born spiritually "dead in transgressions and sins" (Eph. 2:1-2).

Without a proper understanding of this, a necessary component in the beautiful picture of the Gospel is lost. For "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).

The Incompatibility of the Free Will and Original Sin

2007-01-08T14:19:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone, I'm back after a Christmas break hiatus. This is somewhat a part 2 to a previous post I did a couple months ago. This topic has to do with another commonly held contradiction in the minds of many modern evangelicals.

I will first clarify that if one denies the existence of original sin, he is totally and logically free to believe in a free will that is present in humans. However, there are many verses in Scripture contrary to this belief that will be discussed later. But the majority of evangelicals still hold to some doctrine of original sin AND free will. The contradiction of these two doctrines will now be shown.

Let us define what is commonly called the "free will". It is the uninfluenced and unaffected will to any outside force that is supposedly present in all people. Every person is totally able to choose whatever he/she desires. At first glance, this seems so obviously true, one can wonder why its even an issue. Yet, through this analogy, I hope to show that there is something superior to everyone, and every thing's will; its nature.

Here is the analogy, thought up by my pastor:

There is a vulture flying around looking for food. It is flying over a road looking for a new (or old) carcass. On the horizon, it spots a rotting possum down on the road, but right next to the road, it sees a strawberry patch in the prime of ripeness. Now, that vulture has all the ability and the will to fly over to the strawberry field and feast on the delicious berries. In fact, there is no outside obstruction to prevent the vulture from doing that. So why would a vulture always choose the dead possum over the strawberries? Because a vulture is bound by its nature which tells it that is a scavenger that feeds on dead animals.

Now, pardon me for attempting to compare us to vultures, but as with every other living thing, we too have a nature that binds all of our actions. The Bible is very clear on this nature as the following verses will tell. As Paul says in Romans 7:18, he cannot carry out what he desires because of his sinful nature. Of course, after salvation, we are no longer slaves to sin, but to Christ (Rom. 6:6). Instead, we enter into a lifelong conflict between the flesh and the Spirit. However, I am talking about the unregenerate free will decision of salvation that is believed by many. An unsaved person doesn't have the ability on his own to accept Christ. Referring back to the vulture analogy, our will is bound by our nature. In mans' unregenerate state, he is completely bound to his sinful nature which is at constant odds with God (Romans 3:10-18). So, what would an unsaved person's answer be when confronted with a decision to "accept" or "deny" Christ? It would always and forever be a resounding denial of the truth and power of the Gospel. God first has to change the heart of the person before he is willing to believe in Christ. He does this through the Holy Spirit and according to His timing of the salvation of His elect that He chose before the foundations of the world (Eph. 1:4-10).

The belief of an unregenerate free will is just one more way that we try to give ourselves more power and ability than we have. This is of course one of the many tendencies of the sinful nature. We are only as free as our nature will allow.

How Political Correctness Blinds Us to the Evil of Islamic Terrorism

2006-12-12T15:25:00.000-08:00

After listening to a lot of Rush, he has enlightened me on a rather interesting trait in the reporting and portrayal of our enemies in the War on Terror.

If there is one label that can almost instantly destroy a person's reputation in today's culture, it has to be either "racist", "bigot", or the dreadful "intolerant". If a person in the public eye is called one of these names, without extensive proof against the claim, the person's reputation will be assassinated, in effect.

We live in a culture in total fear of offending anybody, ruled by political correctness. The minorities are treated as a china tea cup even if doing so throws the majority around like a rag doll. The rules that we are told to live by are quite obvious even if not stated.

1. Your faith is your faith, and nothing more. The truth you hold doesn't extend past your nose.
2. Since there is only a bunch of individual truths, every person should treat the other person's view as no more or no less true than there own.

These are the rules, and people are told. A small hint of a belief that there is only one true faith, and there's gonna be some gnashing of teeth.

So how does all this tie into my title? The way this war is viewed by many people in the media and politics is different from any other war America has fought. In wars past, the line between the good guys and the bad guys was distinct. America is good, Nazi Germany is bad. America is good, the USSR is bad. One of the reasons of America's success was the undivided support by Americans for their troops and country. However, in the War in Iraq, we aren't fighting an enemy state, we are fighting an enemy that is motivated by its faith. Referring back to "Rule 1" above, this is where the problem arises.

All the Islamic Terrorists fighting us right now, whether Al Qaeda or other group, are really just fascists, that is, they seek to eventually establish a world governed by Islam. They are Islamofascists. But because of the secular humanists' emphasis on tolerance of all faiths and relative truth of all faiths (political correctness), these terrorists get to hide behind the cloak of religion and therefore get all the benefits of tolerance.

Because of this, the portrayal of these terrorists is totally warped. Rather than evil, murderous human beings motivated by radical extremist ideals, they are presented as "gun men" simply upset at all the travesties America has committed. They can decapitate American citizens on camera and use children as human bombs, and the media still won't call them what they are. Why? Again, because the terrorists are represented by another religion and many media people and politicians have adopted an agenda of relativism that refuses to distinguish between good and evil. Take that back, they do sometimes make this distinction, its just that America is always the one in the wrong.

If political correctness was nothing more than being respectful of other people, it would be not only good, but honorable. However, in its fight to be totally tolerant, totally unoffensive, it will intentionally blind itself if evil bares its ugly face.

So expensive...and so offensive!

2006-12-07T07:58:00.000-08:00

OK, so this post has nothing to do with the original goal of this blog, but as you can see, I changed my title to allow for this story. I just couldn't leave this one out. And now I have the freedom to post other stuff.

But anyway, there are times when we are left only to chuckle at the latest happenings of our culture. Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for making my day a little brighter with this story. This ought to make your's brighter too. This is sure to leave you laughing hysterically on one hand and shaking your head in disbelief on the other. Here's the story:

Basically, the famous "Got Milk?" organization came up with a very clever marketing campaign to use in San Fransisco. The idea was to place adhesive cardboard strips, emblazened with the "Got Milk?" logo, and smelling of cookies, on the local bus stop shelters. I for one, think that is an awesome idea. No body wouldn't want a bus stop smelling like cookies! And yet I stood corrected. There were some "complaints" brought to the Municipal Transportation Agency, as spokesperson Maggie Lynch said, "We got complaints" and "It is controversial".

Now, I want you to take 10 seconds to come up with some possible complaints that would make this, of all things, controversial. (1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10) OK, times up. I don't think any of you came up with a complaint this outrageous. There were complaints that opposed the cookie-smelling strip because "the ads could be offensive to the poor and homeless who can't afford to buy sweet treats".

Let it be loudly declared that it is now possible to be offended by the reminder that I can't afford something. Can you believe this? Imagine if we were to actually live our lives with this ability.

I'm at a stop light in my gray '89 Honda Accord, and a BMW Z9 pulls up beside me... HOW OFFENSIVE!

I'm at Guitar Center and I see a vintage 1958 Gibson Les Paul Goldtop Reissue... O, THE HUMANITY!

I'm still laughing.

Enjoy

Caleb

Response to Comment on "Contradictions to Mainstream Arminianism"

2006-11-12T12:18:00.000-08:00

One of the goals of this blog is discussion with you all. As the situations arise, I will use some posts to respond to people's comments. A fellow blogger recently commented on my "Contradictions to Mainstream Arminianism" post. He raised some commonly heard questions toward Calvinism, and I tried my best to give my response. He has not yet responded to my response. Here is his first comment:

Interesting blog, Mr. Roberts. It seems as though you come from either an extremely well-rounded background or you've been completely brainwashed by one-sided philosophy. I felt like your blog had quite a few flaws, beginning with the first paragraph. You seem to hold theologians and college professors at an unsafe level of expertise. Don't look down on people who don't have letters after their names, like me.
Second, I think your interpritation of Ephesians 2:8-9 is stretched at the very least. It is true that Salvation is a gift that we can do nothing to earn, but what of accepting it. God knocks at the door, and anyone who opens it will be received into the family of Christ (Revelation 3:20). So, it is impossible to say that God does not give some a chance, and God does not force his way into our hearts because that would refute our submission to God's will. Finally, what about those God does not "predestine". If one of God's qualities is His perfection, then how could he create a human whose purpose from before conception was to go to hell! That is not a God of love and mercy, but a God whose wrath begins before His grace. Consider 1 Thesselonians 5:9, " For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." Who is to say the foreknowledge, appointment, whatever you wanna call it, is not the very life that we are given by the God who gives us our fisrt breath.
Consider your thesis, divine appointment, to be a "cause" and then consider its natural "effect". If when we're born God has already decided who gets to go to heaven and who doesn't, why evangelize? Why support missionary? Why invite your friends to church or even go to church yourself? In your scenario, it doesn't matter either way...

And here was my response to him:

I am posting my responses as you requested. I’m sorry for the length, but I felt that I needed to address all of your points. I will answer them in the order that you brought them up in your comment to me.Your first point is that my interpretation of Eph. 2:8-9 is stretched. Is it stretched because of the other verses you mention apparently state the opposite? Or is the interpretation stretched within the verse itself? You seem to mean the first, so I will answer that one.
You used the well-known verse, Rev. 3:20 which states, “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.” Many use this verse to prove that salvation comes by us accepting God’s knocking. However, this is a vast misunderstanding of the context of this passage. Rev. 3:20 is a part of paragraph (Rev 3:14-21) addressed to the Church of Laodicea. It is written to believers and is an admonition to a church to, in essence, step it up and get their act together. It is not a verse to unbelievers regarding the way to receive salvation.
Your second point is that, “…It is impossible to say that God does not give some a chance…” Actually, it is possible. There are many examples of this in Scripture, but I will only focus on the more obvious one. Read through Romans 9 and you will find Paul answering the same questions you are asking me. The main part is Romans 9:14-24.
Your third point is about those God did not “predestine”. To begin, no one is predestined to hell, for we all deserve eternity in it from birth as the previously quoted verses say. Next you say that, “If one of God’s qualities is His perfection, then how could He create a human whose purpose from before conception was to go to Hell?!” I have to ask what kind of question this is. Yes, one of God’s attributes is perfection, but this also extends to His perfect wrath. Everything God does is done for one reason, to bring glory to Himself (Rom. 11:33-36). Giving people their just punishment by sending them to hell, brings glory to His perfect justice, and choosing out of this race of sinners those to be adopted as His children, brings glory to His perfect mercy.
Your fourth point is the use of 1 Thess. 5:9 which states, “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Your argument misunderstands the context of not only this verse, but of the whole book. 1 Thessalonians is a letter from Paul to the Thessalonian church i.e. Christians. It is written to believers or those who were, for the most part, already saved. Thus, the verse in context reads, For God did not appoint us (Christians, those He has saved) to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Your fifth point is that the appointment, foreknowledge, predestination etc. mentioned in the Bible could be God giving us our physical lives. This doesn’t hold water because if this was true, consider Rom. 8:29-30 while applying your statement: “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” If your argument was true and foreknowledge just meant God giving us physical life, then according to this verse, every human being that has ever lived would be glorified and enter Heaven. To emphasize this point, I will rewrite this verse using your definition of foreknowledge. “For those God gave physical life, he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. Do you see my point? God’s foreknowledge is not and cannot merely be His gift of physical life to us.
Your final point regards predestination making evangelism obsolete and pointless. If God has already chosen His elect (Eph 1:4-6), what’s the point of witnessing? This is one of the most common, if not clichéd criticisms of Calvinism, and also one of the easiest to refute. Yes, God has already chosen members of humanity to be His children (Rom. 8:29-30, Eph. 1:4-5, 1 Pet. 1:1-2), and the way He has chosen to bring His children to a realization of Him is through the witnessing and preaching of the Gospel (Rom. 10:14), and as told to us by the Great Commission. We evangelize because we are commanded by God to do so. Also, only God knows who the elect are, and therefore we are to proclaim the Gospel to all. God has ordained that men are saved through the preaching of the Gospel. As for me going to church, I have no idea why God’s predestination would nullify this. I go to church because I too need constant reminders of my sin, the Word preached to me and fellowship with other believers (Heb. 10:24-25).
Your comment displays some of the most common criticisms of Calvinism. Unfortunately, most of them also display a deep lack of understanding of both Calvinism and many Scriptures. I again thank you for your comment and hope to discuss other issues with you in the future. I look forward to reading your posts as well.

Thanks

Caleb Roberts

Contradictions of Mainstream Arminianism - Pt. 1

2006-11-04T14:29:00.000-08:00

I'm back with you all with a new post. I am beginning a series of posts on the internal contradictions of "mainstream Arminianism". First, I need to clarify my definitions. Although true Arminianism has some definite conflicts with Scripture, it doesn't have any contradictions against itself. What I am referring too is "mainstream", or the "common man's" Arminianism. This is a rather interesting trait of this theology that I have seen. There seems to be two branches of the theology. There's the more logically consistent form, which is held mostly by the more academic type (i.e. some professors and the theologically inclined), then there's the more common form, which is less logically consistent, held by your average-joe churchgoers who are inclined to Arminianism. The contradictions of the latter will be discussed in the next series of posts.

Here's the first contradiction, displayed by two commonly heard statements. The first is, "I am not saved by works, I am saved by grace". The other is, "I got saved when I chose to accept Jesus into my life". Now, even though the spectrum of Protestant Christianity in America is wide, we all, for the most part, still fervently hold on to the anti-Catholic doctrine of salvation by grace put forth by the Reformation Fathers all those years ago. In fact, one could say without much fear of falsity, that no American Evangelical would admit that he/she was saved by works. However, many people after saying that they were saved by grace and not works, will in the next breath say that they were saved by a choice of their free will, as if their choosing is not a work.

In this post, I will attempt to show how, according to the Bible, a free will choice of salvation would be considered a work causing salvation. Let us first look at a very well known verse, Ephesians 2:8-9, which states:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

Most Christians know this verse; it has a permanent residence in the group of verses most often quoted to put Christianity in a nut shell. Yet, many misunderstand that last phrase "not by works, so that no one can boast". Most will say something like, "See, right there it says it, we aren't saved by giving to the poor and going to confession and the like". Of course, that statement is absolutely true, but there is much more to that little phrase than initially meets the eye. The "works" that are referred too here are not merely outward expressions of piety, but any action that would give a person room to boast. A free will choice of salvation would fall in this category. If a person believes that a choice of himself brought about his salvation, even if it is a response to prior prevenient grace, he has room to say, "I owe this part of my salvation, how little it may be, to myself". This, course is boasting in the context of the previously listed verse. Ephesians 2:8-9 totally excludes any responsibility on the part of ourselves for our salvation. A free will choice of salvation is nothing less than a work to salvation, for it is from ourselves, so that we would boast.

Taking into consideration our total depravity, and verses such as Eph. 2:8-9, God's predestination and effectual calling is an absolute necessity if the human race is to have any hope of salvation. After all, that is the whole dilemma of humanity; that we are all born wicked sinners, abhorrent to a Holy God, deserving of His Wrath, and incapable of saving ourselves (Romans 3). The solution is also as clear as the problem. God, in His infinite mercy before the foundation of the earth, chose to save some to be brought into His Kingdom as His adopted children (Eph. 1:4-7). Consider Romans 8:29-30, which states:

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Note that the verse does not say, "And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he waited for their acceptance, those who accepted, he also justified...". No, it is all God's work from the beginning to the end. From our predestination to our glorification, it is the power and grace of God working in us through the whole thing as the keystone verse of this post blatantly proclaims; it is a gift of God, not by us, so that we can't boast.

The Issue of the Church's "Relevance" to Culture

2006-10-26T18:35:00.000-07:00

When looking over the landscape of the American evangelical church, one can quickly see a relatively new breed of churches in existence. Many of them are not tied to a particular denomination, and have sleek, modern looking buildings and decor. They seek to be non-conventional in almost every thing they do because the old way is outdated and irrelevant. Over all of their unique activites, they place an umbrella called "relevance". They wish to appeal to the modern culture's current fancies by reinventing the image of church. However, some of these churches miss the point of the duty of the church and the power of the Gospel of Christ, in all its solitary glory.

While the spectrum for these churches is quite large, one common thread runs through them all, and it is a thread that they outwardly and proudly display. This is the thread of "relevance". When a church invokes this title as a part of their mission, one can usually assume certain characteristics to be found of the church. To these churches, being relevant is way more than just the act of avoiding being irrelevant. No, the word encompasses a new, somewhat revolutionary way of "doing church". This almost obsessive desire to be relevant effects everything from the music, the preaching, the atmosphere, even the decor of the building. One local church writes in its values section of their website that:

"Just because a program or ministry reached the unchurched yesterday doesn't mean it is effective today. We believe to win the lost we must be willing to continually change our methods but not the message."

That quote pretty much sums up the mindset behind the "relevance movement" as I call it. According to it, we as a church, must look over the present society, and adapt our church doings to reflect what the culture desires. In other words, we must market the Gospel to appeal to our audience if we wish to have any hope of successful evangelism. The church previously quoted goes on to say:

"To win the unchurched we believe we must present the Gospel of Jesus Christ in fresh, creative ways (illustrated messages, dramas, video, etc.)"

By now, I hope that some of you are beginning to see some of the errors of this thinking. Churches that operate under beliefs such as those previously quoted are allowing the ever-changing culture (i.e. the world) to dictate the way they function. This is a dangerous thing to do considering that the world is majorly made up of lost people in bondage to their sinful nature. This is not what to Bible wants the Church to be influenced by (Romans 12:2). Also, consider some of the implications behind those quotes. According to the quotes, the power of the Gospel is not in the Gospel itself, but in the packaging of it. As I said before, some of these churches build their existence on the mission to be attractive to the culture in order to draw them through their doors. This mindset doubts the power of both the preaching of the true Gospel and the ordinary means of grace outlined to us by God in His Word. The culture doesn't want verse-by-verse, expository preaching of the Bible, they want "5 Steps to have a better...". So following the cultures desires, the church becomes Dr. Phil with a few Bible verses; and this is just what these churches "preach". Scripture gives us a different picture on how the church should deal with society.

In the first chapter of Romans, the Holy Spirit, through Paul, tells us that in the Gospel, the power of God for salvation and a righteousness for believers is found. In 1 Corinthians 15:2, Paul again tells us that we are saved through the preaching of the Gospel. That is how God has ordained for His elect to be brought to Him. The Great Commission tells us simply to teach what Jesus taught, and God will do the rest. We don't have to strategize a bunch of bells and whistles as bait to unbelievers. For it is not by our doing that God's sheep are drawn to Him. 1 Corinthians 1:17 puts it perfectly:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

The Gospel gets watered down when it has to go through the filter of what's relevant to the culture. It is a paradox when it comes to this; while there is nothing more relevant in the universe to any culture of any time than the Gospel, unregenerate man will view the Gospel as the least relevant thing in the universe. God must first open the eyes of the unbeliever before he can see his need for the salvation that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. And He does this through the Gospel alone.

The Age of Accountability

2006-10-17T09:34:00.000-07:00

There are presuppositions that are held by many Christians that are a product of human logic, not necessarily having substantial Biblical support. One of these assumptions is the doctrine of the "age of accountability" as it is called. In many circles, it is one of those unspoken rules of thumb; it is touted as "what has to be true". However, this doctrine possesses some clear fallacies that are not hard to uncover if proper examination is applied.

Let us first observe the definition and nature of this doctrine. This belief simply states that people who die before reaching an opportunity of understanding of salvation, repentance, etc (i.e. infants, mentally handicapped, etc.) will not be held accountable by God for their sins since they never had the chance to ask for forgiveness. The logic makes sense to finite human conceptions of justice, innocence, and mercy. Is there a more appropriate picture of innocence on earth than a newborn human baby? To think that the precious child would have to bear the wrath of God if he/she died is an unthinkable, if not barbaric thought. I understand there is immense emotion tied to this issue, since it concerns many parents whose children died at a young age. In the midst of such grief, it is comforting to invoke this doctrine as means of assurance of the child's well-being. Yet, we need to look at God's revealed Word to us to formulate our beliefs.

Now, I have called and will continue to call the "age of accountability" a doctrine because it is held by many with the same intensity as other true doctrines of Scripture, and for lack of a better word. Yet, it is really nothing more than a logical conclusion. Statements that are normally associated with the belief are ones that begin like, "God wouldn't do...", "God isn't a God that would...". Note the use of the word "would". This word is used to imply truth without specific evidence. We say it when we don't have actual proof to verify a claim, but may have previous events or behavior to give the claim some validity. This is totally fine when dealing with other people, but it is dangerous to assume things about God's character that aren't revealed in the Bible. For God's definition of justice and mercy are far superior to the measly conceptions of our finite minds. Echoed throughout the Bible in chapters and verses such as Job 38 and Isaiah 40:13, our limited depravity and God immeasurable glory is clear.

Aside from the flawed nature of this doctrine, there are some distinct theological and Scriptural problems to be noted. Let's examine another one of the basic premises of this doctrine and compare them to what we know to be true from the Bible. One of the first pillars of this belief is that we all aren't really sinful until we knowingly and intentionally commit a sin. Even though this is rarely stated, it is essential to the doctrine. For age of accountability to function, there cannot be any sin already present in humans from conception. If there was, there would be grounds for the person to be held accountable. However, from a brief look at God's Word, we find that there is sin from the moment of conception; we all bear the curse of Adam without doing anything (Psalm 51:5). We are in complete rebellion towards God from birth and are abhorrent and offensive to His glory.

By now, some of you might be turning red at my post. Almost everyone either knows someone who has gone through the tragedy of losing a child, or lost one themselves. They would be right to say to me, "What's the hope?!", "We can't help the fact that some babies die!", "Is all the comfort we are to give to grieving parents is a short "too bad", and be done with it?" There is a hope and it is one that is often forgotten in the doctrine of age of accountability. Is God surprised when one of the people He created in His image dies? When an infant dies, does God freak out, not knowing what to do with the soul? Absolutely not! Could God, in His omniscience, chose all babies that will die young to be His children? We can't concretely back up that claim, but it sure wouldn't be outside God's power. We do know this from Scripture; that God is infinitely just AND infinitely merciful (Neh. 9:31, Micah 7:18, Rom. 11:32). So to answer the question, "What happens to babies that die before a realization of salvation?", we can't make a concrete claim Biblically. But we can take comfort in the fact that God is merciful and perfect and what ever happens to the infants will be a part of His perfect plan for His glory.

Welcome

2006-10-16T10:13:00.000-07:00

Everyone,

Welcome to my blog. The purpose of this site is to hopefully expose some of the flawed assumptions that are commonly held by Christians in the modern Evangelical church. Since the Bible is the innerrant, inspired Word Of God, this is what will be used the most in determining the validity of these different doctrines.

Read on and I hope you enjoy it!

-Caleb