Yes, age of accountability is true. [Isa 7:15-16 NLT] "15 By the time this child is old enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong.... 16 For before the child is that old...."
Age of accountability doesn't refute people are born into sin. If a child were to die they would not go to Hell, because they have not reached the age of accountability to have the free choice. Not sure why you thought the mother would be sinning by having a child. Perhaps explain that.
Rom. 3.23 doesn't say babies go to Hell. It says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." The blood of the cross covers babies and those who have not reached the age of accountability. That you think babies go to Hell tells me you are not a Christian, just pretending here.
A mother who aborts her baby is sinning, obviously, but that is not our discussion. God says age of accountability is true, but you seem to want to supersede him and even compare yourself to Hitler claiming like babies the Jews were born of the gas chambers by your proclamation. How evil!
No such thing as an "age of accountability". No Scripture backs this up. Babies are conceived and born INTO their sin nature. David said, "behold in SIN my mother conceived me". He wasn't saying his mother was sinning when he was conceived. God is saying through David that EVERYONE is conceived and born WITH their Adamic sin nature fully operative. Romans 3:23. If they die before a certain age that people in their EMOTIONS say they are "accountable", say 4 years? 5 years? and they have not been born again, they will go to Hell. Yes aborted babies go to Hell. The sin consequence for the murder also lies with the mother who aborted her baby. I want someone, anyone, to show me Scriptures that clearly support the "age of accountability" theory. It is unbiblical and dangerous. it says we know better than God when a person becomes "accountable" for their sins.
Some take Jer. 51.39,57 to teach annihilationism (that there is no resurrection). "When they are heated, I will make their feast, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith Jehovah.... And I will make drunk her princes and her wise men, her governors and her deputies, and her mighty men; and they shall sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the King, whose name is Jehovah of hosts" (Jer. 51.39,57). However, permanent sleep is just a metaphor or euphemism for physical death as in Ps. 76: "Our boldest enemies have been plundered. They lie before us in the sleep of death. No warrior could lift a hand against us" (v.5). This verse does not teach about what happens after death; that is taught in passages such as Is. 66.24: "And they shall go forth, and look upon the dead bodies of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." The worm can never die because what they feed on never dies. "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Heb. 9.27). If we are appointed once to die, we can never die again after judgment. Judgment comes to those who are alive.
Verse 9 I think is the key verse: "But you have gone too far, killing them without mercy, and all heaven is disturbed." And verse 10: "now you are planning to make slaves of these people." You've taken this passage too far, because what Christian enslaves another Christian? These people are not necessarily saved either, but are part of two nations: Israel and Judah. God is speaking to them as nations not as individually saved persons. I can see how you potentially are abusing the Scriptures to falsely judge Christians who point out your failings.
You are likely using this passage for your own self-serving purposes. This is what the Holy Spirit has put on my heart to say. Take for example when a brother in Christ was kicked out of Church and handed over to Satan for being deceitful. I might imagine you would accuse Paul for doing so because you said brothers should not have "disapproval over one’s failing and weakness." Who made this rule up? You? Also, I fear that you don't recognize many false Christians who have never been born-again, but if they are not treated according to your stipulation, you suggest a wrong was done. Their fruits show they are not Christians. The fact is the gospel message has not been received as evident by very strange teachings of that one you call a Christian, e.g. they believe odd things like in Mormonism, they kick women in the face, or they are profuse nose pickers, etc. This is not a matter of "Christian liberty." You're confusing two completely different matters. All of this is of a very strange spirit that they remain unrepentant of. We shall know them by their works.
I don't think the passages you cite support your view when you said, "we should seek to judge ourselves and not others and to look at our own failings and not the failings of others." The Bible never says to ignore the sins of others. That is a very strange thing to say. Christians, if we are loving, will point out the failings of our brothers and sisters and encourage them to repent. Whereas you remain silent, assuming you are a Christian. As would be your misusing 2 Chron. 28, you are misusing Romans 14: "So why do you condemn another believer? Why do you look down on another believer? Remember, we will all stand before the judgment seat of God" (v.10). Here we are told don't condemn brothers and sisters in Christ. But pointing out someone else's sin is not condemning them. Are you making this mistake?
"For the Scriptures say, As surely as I live, says the LORD, every knee will bend to me, and every tongue will confess and give praise to God. Yes, each of us will give a personal account to God. So let’s stop condemning each other. Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not cause another believer to stumble and fall. I know and am convinced on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong" (vv.11-14). Distinguish a matter such as this with, for example, someone who is unclean with their profuse nose picking and proud of it, claims Mormons are Christians, does not repent of kicking a woman in the face, and whose anger is about to blast out at any moment. We should be slow to anger (James 1.20). There are cleansing laws in the OT for a reason. Same old bad habits and false ideas continue to be not of God. And retaliation from said individual as well is further signs something is rotten and he is not a Christian. You would call such a person a Christian, but I would not. The gospel never entered that person's heart.
This applies to brothers and sisters in Christ (Romans 14.10-14), not to false Christians. Discern the difference. Not everyone is a Christian who claims to be.
All of this agrees with the problem of someone whom you may have known for many decades, and never once did they give you the gospel of salvation in Christ before you were born-again. Then later they too call themselves Christians (or even say they were always Christians even though this is news to everyone), but there was no Christ in them to be mentioned before, and they did not enter into the new birth subsequent to your conversion either. Therefore, they still remain to this day unregenerate.
Let's say you give the gospel to another person who does not testify back to you that they too are saved and when they were born-again. You have no indication they are a brother or sister member of the body of Christ. But then months later they say they are a Christian and pick a time when they had some positive development in their life prior to the date when you gave them the gospel, and they associate that to believing in Jesus as if Jesus is just some word or symbol to convey an improvement in in their behavior. But of course, Jesus is a real person. He is God. He created you and physically died on the cross and resurrected bodily.
Do you think Dan thinks of himself as a carnival barker? He seems to act like one in his public debates. Put him next to Lawrence Krauss and you have a carnival barker and a clown. Krauss looks and acts like a clown, while Dan acts like a carnival barker.
I believe that this matter was resolved in the 1st century as many would agree. Because it says in Rev 20.3 the nations are not deceived in the 1000 years. How can we say the nations are not deceived today when 10,000 children die every day due to starvation and we continue to hear of wars and rumors of wars?
We are also told Satan is the god of this world today, so how could he be in the pit now? Satan wasn't put in the pit when Jesus died on the cross. So he continues to operate today. Hence, the need for spiritual warfare.
Satan is put in the pit for 1000 years. But that can't be after eternity future because it says he is released at the end of the millennium. Eternity future goes on forever. So the millennium can't be eternity future in the New City and New Earth, because all things are reconciled before then.
"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Cor 4.4).
"And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season" (Rev 20.3).
In conclusion, Jesus is reigning above, but not on earth with a rod iron when He returns with His overcomers, so the 1000 years has not yet begun. A rod of iron is not needed in Rev. 21 the New City and New Earth, but is needed in Rev. 20, because many people will not believe in Christ even though he is reigning on earth for 1000 years when He returns. See Rev. 2.26,27; 20.4-6.
Originally Posted by Red Baker
The strongest scripture that condemns premillennialism and support amillenlialism, one that premill group cannot answer is found in 2 Thess. 2. If I was standing before a person who believed in premillennialism I would ask him this question: "Which come first~ Christ's coming, or antichrist?" Now he must say Christ's coming, since that is what they believe and teach; yet Paul, said in 2 Thess. 2 that antichrist must come first.
"Don’t be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed—the one who brings destruction" (2 Thess. 2.3). This says Jesus won't step down on the mount of olives until the Antichrist is revealed who will "will exalt himself and defy everything that people call god and every object of worship. He will even sit in the temple of God, claiming that he himself is God" (v.4). Premillennialists don't say Jesus comes first.
Pretrib and Postrib both claim before Jesus steps down, the Antichrist must be revealed who is already working in the spirit of others: "And you know what is holding him back, for he can be revealed only when his time comes. For this lawlessness is already at work secretly, and it will remain secret until the one who is holding it back steps out of the way. Then the man of lawlessness will be revealed, but the Lord Jesus will kill him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by the splendor of his coming. This man will come to do the work of Satan with counterfeit power and signs and miracles" (vv.6-9). Satan is restraining his Antichrist to be revealed at the right time.
The Meaning of This Experience
According to the believer’s interpretation, he is at his spiritual peak when in possession of the wonderful feeling: he is at his lowest when deprived of it. He often characterizes his walk as full of ups and downs. By this he means that while he is feeling joyful, loving the Lord and sensing His presence he is at his spiritual best; but if his inward sensation is marked by dryness and pain he must be at his spiritual worst. In other words, he is spiritual so long as the warm fire of love is burning in his heart but soulish if his heart turns icy cold. Such is the common notion among Christians. Is it accurate? It is totally inaccurate. Unless we understand how it is wrong we shall suffer defeat to the very end.
A Christian should recognize that “feeling” is exclusively a part of the soul. When he lives by sensation, no matter what the kind, he is being soulish. During the period that he feels joyful, is loving the Lord and senses His presence, he is walking by feeling; likewise, during the period that he feels just the opposite he is still walking by feeling. just as he is soulish whose life and labor are dictated by a refreshing, bright and joyous sensation, so is he equally soulish whose walk and work are determined by a dry, gloomy and painful. one. A real spiritual life is never dominated by, nor lived in, feeling. Rather does it regulate feeling. Nowadays Christians mistake a life of feeling for spiritual experience. This is because many have never entered into genuine spirituality and hence interpret happy sensation to be spiritual experience. They do not know that such feeling is still soulical. Only what occurs in the intuition is spiritual experience—the rest is merely soulical activity.
It is here that Christians make one of the grossest mistakes. Under the stimulation of emotion a child of God may feel he has ascended to heaven. And naturally he assumes he has an ascended life. But he does not realize this is solely how he feels. He thinks he possesses the Lord whenever he is conscious of His presence, yet he believes he has lost the Lord whenever he cannot sense Him; once more he knows not that this is but the way he feels. He thinks he is truly loving the Lord as he senses a warmth in his heart; but should there be no burning sensation then he concludes that he has veritably lost his love for Him; yet again he is ignorant of the truth that such are only his feelings. We know that fact may not agree with feeling for the latter is exceedingly untrustworthy. Indeed, whether one senses much or senses nothing, the fact remains he is unchanged. He may feel he is progressing and yet may make no progress at all; he may likewise feel he is regressing and yet may not regress in the slightest. These are simply his feelings. When full of lively stirrings he reckons he is advancing spiritually; this, however, is just a time of emotional excitement which soon will subside to its former state. The working of emotion seems to assist soulical people to advance but the working of the Spirit causes spiritual men to advance. The progress of the former is false; only what is attained in the power of the Holy Spirit is true.
Originally Posted by JoReba
What Spiritual fruit has the Nation of Israel produced today after it came back to life in 1948?
What requirement in the Bible is there for Israel to produce spiritual fruit when she becomes a nation again or anytime thereafter, for Scripture is clear the nation of Israel rejects the Lord up and to His return. Did you not know that?
A remnant of Israel will seek the Lord upon His return and they will be protected in the wilderness for 42 months. The Antichrist will not be able to kill them so their faith in the Lord is their spiritual fruit when He returns.
Israel will build the 3rd Temple during the Tribulation, completed with 2300 days left before day Jesus steps down. Even though they institute animal sacrifices, the building of the Temple itself as prophesied can itself be considered spiritual fruit.
What Spiritual fruit has the Nation of Israel produced today after it came back to life in 1948?
Very well said.
Ya that wouldn't make much sense if a person was not resurrected but they are floating around somewhere without a body. Clearly they are asleep awaiting to be resurrect together at the appointed time.