While surfing the net, I came across the writings of a certain K.B. Napier. When I read the rantings of this weirdo from Wales about how all Charismatics believe a false gospel, I issued him a challenge which he finally did respond to, though with little more than simply insisting that he was right. A few weeks later, I came across another article that he had written in support of the idea of infants who die being damned (you can read it for yourself at http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/articles/article_00126_do_babies_automatically_go_to_heaven_web.htm). After reading his article, I immediately began to see red; my spirit would not rest till I had torn down this abomination to sound doctrine, cast it to the ground, burned it to lime, trampled the residue, scattered it to the four winds, and sown the foundations with salt. Napier is insanely egocentric and fanatically dogmatic about his small points of doctrine - even brashly asserting that belief in the true gospel is contingent on belief in infant damnation (I'm not kidding, as you'll see below). But 'Nappy' is about to get a dose of righteous indignation coupled with sound refutation by the word of God, for even the lowliest teacher of the real gospel can easily tear through his lies and distortions. Put on your latex gloves: It's changing time.
Quotes from the article in question ("Do Babies Automatically Go to Heaven," K.B. Napier) will be displayed in brown.
Are Infants Sinners?
Nappy's entire case is built upon the premise that children from the moment of conception are, in some sick, pseudo-Calvinist sense, guilty of sin just from the fact that they have a sinful nature. The entirety of his madness stands or falls with that belief.
A man is conceived and born in sin. That is what scripture says.
On which I, and all orthodox Christian theologians agree up to that point. Past that, Nappy begins to get stinky,
Even when born, then, a child is held culpable for his state.
...even a child in the womb is held accountable by Almighty God.
For the most part He declares that men are sinners from conception and must bear the consequences of that sin.
Children, from conception, are sinners. And scripture says that an unsaved sinner cannot enter heaven. In God's word this is immutable and unchangeable. Our emotions do not enter the equation. Read scripture and see the true state of babies - God does not see the age of a person who dies. He only sees their state. Children are sinners from conception.
In 1 Peter 1:23 we are referred to our state at conception: "Being born again not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God..."Why do you think we are told we are born of 'corruptible' seed if a mere child is good enough to enter heaven without salvation? The word 'corruptible', phthartos, means 'perishing'. Its root word, phtheiro, means 'corrupt', 'defiled', 'depraved'. Its opposite is given in the text as 'incorruptible' (aphthartos) and this speaks of immortality, not liable to decay, cannot perish. So, we are conceived of a seed that inherently has decay and mortality within it.
Search as you may, nowhere in scripture do we find even one exception to the rule of salvation! And nowhere do we find anything that tells us a child is free of Sin. He is 'responsible' in the godly, legal sense, for His own Sin, from the moment he is conceived. If he is not, then every child is born sinless!
If David, the apple of God's eye, could say "...I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" , who are reformed men to suggest that every child is somehow free of this sin and can automatically enter heaven?
Young children do, as I have affirmed, possess sinful natures from conception, but are not sinners (sinner = one who has sinned or is sinning). If Nappy were even familiar with his own monergist proof texts, he would know that God proclaimed Jacob the chosen while he and his brother were still in the womb -- before either of them had done good or evil.
(For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)...
Romans 9:11
Someone who has not done evil by definition cannot be a sinner.
A Question of Accountability
As stated at the beginning, Nappy's case stands entirely on the delusion that children are guilty of and accountable for sin merely by existing with a sinful nature. He scoffs at the idea of an age prior to accountability.
But, what of this 'age of responsibility'? As we have already intimated, this is a Roman Catholic teaching, not a Biblical one.
David himself was deemed justified by his faith (even though he had been elected by God)...read the whole of Hebrews 11! By definition a small child does not have faith, saving or otherwise. The idea that a child is somehow pure until he reaches the age of responsibility is Jesuit/Catholic theology, not scriptural teaching.
A man who is unsaved does not enter heaven, whether he is unborn, one minute, or 100 years old. We might argue that God will not apply His own laws to babies, simply because they have made no conscious decision to sin. It is, of course, possible - but if it is, scripture does not tell us so.
Nappy's teaching if of course so much nonsense, as the scripture makes it clear that imputation of sin comes with knowledge of it. In his whacked-out pseudo-hyper-Calvinist "logic", children are born spiritually dead because of their sin nature, and are therefore subject to the wrath of God Almighty. What does the scripture actually say? It says that we are born in sin with a sinful nature and tendencies, but it does not say that sin is automatically accounted to us by God; indeed it says the exact opposite:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.)
Romans 5:12-13
There must be a law to break for man to sins to be counted against a man. What about those not under the Jewish law, are they exceptions?
For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)
Romans 2:12-15
When one does not know the law of God, we are still a law unto ourselves and our own consciences convict us as transgressors before God -- making Jew and Gentile alike sinners before God.
So we are now down to the main question: Are we born guilty, or does God count us as such when we consciously commit sin? Paul further writes:
What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which [was ordained] to life, I found [to be] unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew [me].
Romans 7:7-11
Paul was spiritually alive before knowing the law, but when the command of God came to him (he acquired knowledge of it), sin was revived (anazao - made alive or powerful) from its dormant state in his nature, and he died spiritually. This is a clear example and model of how spiritual death is incurred through knowledge of good and evil by the law of God;
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:20
For if Paul were already under the law and spiritually dead before he even understood the command of God, then he could not have been alive to be slain thereby after he understood it!
It is therefore logically impossible according to God's word that the helpless unborn, infants, and severely mentally disabled be counted as sinners by Him, for there is no law for them (no way that they can have knowledge of the law or conscience), and sin is not imputed where there is no law. It is manifest from scripture that even if a sin nature is present, apart from the law there is still no sin imputed, for while believers have a sinful nature present within us, Christ has freed us from the curse of the law, and sin is not imputed to us because despite our knowledge, we are now under God's grace instead.
"Proof" Texts
Having no solid biblical foundation for his strange jangling, Nappy resorts to badly pulling scripture out of context to try to paint infants and unborn as pure evil. You can sense from the way that he writes that Nappy is overflowing and just oozing with Christian love...oh wait, I don't think that's love...
On the subject of the sinful nature of us all, David wrote (Psalm 58):
"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."
Now THERE's a proof text for you! Congratulations Napier on achieving third-grade level reading comprehension, but he obviously has some ways left to go as he cannot recognize an obvious hyperbole when he reads it. Pretty miraculous that they can speak lies as soon as they are born, eh?
Having no emotional hang-up about the age of a person, David's response is blunt:
"Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth...let them melt away... let them be cut in pieces...let (every one of them) pass away; (like) the untimely birth of a woman, (that) they may not see the sun..."
David is, then, asking God to cut short a life in the womb, that the wicked should not even be born, to ravage society and wreak havoc. (Remember, this is God's word). He said this because he knew the true state of children.
And the craziness just continues, David is comparing the destruction of the wicked to the death of a stilborn child, not asking God to destroy an 'evil' child before it is born. Kind of hard to break their teeth before they have any, isn't it?
At birth, a child is destined to sin! Within him is the seed of evil that can show as a Hitler or, after salvation, as a Spurgeon. Look at Isaiah 48:8:
"...for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb."
That is God speaking, through Isaiah! To suggest that this is only foreknowledge is to misunderstand God and election. God foreknows, because He has predestined!
Even if you believe the tenets of Calvinism, this is still obviously referring to foreknowledge. It's called predestined because it has not happened yet, and God often refers to things by what they will be, as opposed to what they are presently.
"And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger."
Genesis 25:23
Additionally, in Nappy's "God foreknows because He has predestined", there are inherent problems. For whom God foreknows He predestinates to be conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29); so if he foreknows because He predestinates as Nappy says, but predestines whom He foreknows as scripture says, we are stuck with quite a logical mess if we believe both. That's not a golden chain, it's an infinite loop!
The intrinsic sinfulness of men is shown in Hoseah 9:11:
"(As for) Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception." Thus, Ephraim's 'glory' was destroyed at conception.
Nappy displays new depths of contextual ignorance by pulling a scripture about God punishing the Israelites by bereaving them and trying to twist it into "evidence" for his unscriptural theology.
See what God says about sinful men, as babies, in Hosea 2:4,5: "...I will not have mercy upon her children; for they (be) the children of whoredoms. For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully". Note that - God Himself said He will not have mercy upon the children.
And he just keeps the stinkers coming. In this passage God is referring to Israel by analogy as a harlotrous wife, and will not show mercy to the people (children) of Israel because of their national sin.
Jesus said: "...Except a man be born of water and (of) the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5). That is, he must be born not only physically, but spiritually. If all children go to heaven, then what of "Ye are of (your) father the devil..."? (John 8:44).
They are "of their father the devil" because they wilfully commit wickedness,
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1 John 3:8
- which the very young are manifestly incapable of doing.
And what of David's honest appraisal in Psalm 51:5: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."? In Galatians 3:22 we see that everyone is bound by sin unless they believe: "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."
Already addressed the issue of sinful nature vs sinful actions, and the reason that the scripture concludes all under sin is because of our committing sinful deeds.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
Romans 3:23
'Sinned' refers to past action, not a state of being; that type of action being what alienates us from God (Colossians 1:21). It is indeed for our sins that we are condemned, not merely our anscestry. It does not say, "all are born of Adam, and fallen short of the glory of God", but "all have sinned." Being born of Adam does indeed lead to falling into sin once the difference between good and evil is recognized (hence, in Adam all die); but despite their relation, the two are distinctly different things. Napster won't quit there though,
In 4:1-3 the sinfulness of children is underlined: "Now I say, (That) the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But he is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world." Here the text properly combines both natural children and unsaved men (called 'children' in this text) as being the same - both are under the law and are bound to do the things of the world.
Children have a sin nature, if you will recall, no one is arguing that point. This does not mean that God holds them guilty of sin before they actually commit it, nor does it make them under the law before they understand it, else Paul's discourse about being killed through the law is totally meaningless.
1 Corinthians 15 tells us that we are all born in 'dishonour' with 'natural' bodies that cannot enter heaven. How, then, can a child enter heaven merely on the merit of being under a certain age? There is no such merit or excuse given in any of scripture.
Of course a natural body can't enter heaven, no one's can until it is changed. One who is young enters heaven by the fact that God does not account sin to them, not by virtue of age. One who is extremely mentally disabled or born without brain waves commits no sin even if their vital signs continue for a century, whereas a normal child of ten or twelve years old can easily commit sin and be consigned to hell. Nappy tries to set up a strawman, but simply won't recognize that age isn't the issue.
Problematic Passages
Nappy then attempts to downplay or explain away any passages of scripture that are contrary with his bizarre theology.
The proof texts used to support such a notion are spiritualised or badly interpreted, paying scant regard to the meanings of words themselves, or to the context they appear in. Nor do they pay attention to the rest of scripture, which fully and bountifully outweighs any such claims.
(Speaking of king David's discourse after losing his young son in 2 Samuel 12:23)
The actual text only says the obvious...that the child was dead and cannot return to David, but David will one day die like the child. Nothing more. The words 'I shall go' (halak) mean just that - but can bear the meaning of dying or departing. (It is similar to yalak, which can also bear the idea of dying). This is what the whole context is saying - whilst the child is incapable of being alive, David will eventually die and be in a like state. To make it mean the child was taken to heaven is an extrapolation. It is also a denial of the very core of Biblical teaching on salvation.
Not an extrapolation at all, for David hoped to be reunited with his child, but knew that it would happen only when he died. The very structure of David's statement that he would go to his child instead of the child returning to him carries with it intrinsically the idea of being united with his son personally at a future time just as he longed for in the present.
But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
2 Samuel 12:23
He would, as he stated, go to his son -- not merely to the grave. What sense does it make in that context for a grieving parent to say "I can't bring him back, but I'll die one day too"? David's statement is utterly senseless if such a meaning is applied to it. The bereaved king was obviously referring to seeing his newborn son again one day when they will awake in God's likeness.
(speaking of John the Baptist being filled with the Spirit in his mother's womb)
Though elected, he still had to live righteously. To say that such men were born sinless is to reject the fact of man's total and utter depravity, as taught in scripture. Can you see the problem with saying a child can enter heaven without first having his sin dealt with and his earthly salvation assured? The problem is that we then make that child equal with Christ, sinless and without corruption. Scripture tells us that, apart from Adam and Eve, only Jesus was born sinless.
No one's arguing that children are born sinless (i.e. without a sin nature), and we have already seen that sin is not imputed to those with no law.
Another kind of text used as 'proof' by believers in the automatic salvation of children, is found in the New Testament, where Jesus talks of 'little children'.
Oh boy, Nappy's about to produce another steamer...
One text wrongly alluded to is Matthew 18:1. It is often used in sermons to refer to the salvation of children, but it is nothing of the sort! Jesus was using Hebrew idiomatic teaching here to illustrate something. At this time and on other occasions the disciples were debating who would be Jesus' 'right hand man' in heaven. To settle the dispute Jesus called a child to His side as a visual aid.
He told them that unless they repented and turned away from their sin (be saved) they could not enter heaven. They must 'become as little children'. So, he was referring to adults becoming like children...He was not referring to the children themselves, only to their propensity to trust. Note that they must 'become as'. That is, become child-like (not childish), trusting Him implicitly. Without this total trust (faith) they would not enter heaven. To make this mean little children automatically enter heaven because of this trust in adults, is to extrapolate wildly. ...There is a big difference between being 'child-like' and 'childish'!
Funny, He didn't seem to be indicating that they were merely an idiom for trust. The Lord said,
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:14
Little children are innocent, pure, and trusting. Though they have a sinful nature in them (as even believers still do), God does not hold accountable for sin because they have no knowledge of the law. Those who enter the kingdom of heaven become as little children: Though still being possessed of a sinful nature, we walk in the Spirit and do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, and through complete trust in Christ we are not accounted with sin because through Him we are no longer under the law.
It's also funny to observe Nappy's words on children trusting,
Can you see that a tiny child cannot have this faith (trust)? As we 'must' (an imperative) be born again and believe, we have no option but to disregard the idea of children automatically going to heaven.
So children are only used as an idiomatic expression of being trusting but cannot themselves trust God in any sense. Yeah. Okay.
In what is probably the most stunning display of his ignorance of biblical scholarship, Nappy blunderingly confuses ritual holiness (setting apart) under the Old Testament law with spiritual holiness,
We see in Luke 2:23 that "Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord". In its context this refers to the Old Testament order of things, concerning males born to Hebrews, the chosen nation. Such a statement no longer applies.
Where did this hack learn principles of biblical interpretation? Off the back of a cereal box? Nevertheless, let the record show that Nappy does in fact teach that under the Old Testament law, males were born holy. This will come into play shortly.
No Exceptions!!
Being all but completely ignorant of the teachings of scripture, Napier begins frantically ranting about the impossibility of exceptions to his dichomatic formula of salvation.
If we are conceived in sin, God cannot, by His own decrees, take a child into heaven merely because he has died. It is simply not possible. That child must be born again. There are no exceptions.
- they certainly do not support the idea that all children go to heaven...any child who enters heaven does so only if he has been elected and he has, in his tender years, been born again.
To be 'born again' is to be born naturally, and then, when one has heard and considered the gospel message, is saved. Look at John 3, verse 3. Jesus said: "...Except (or, 'unless') a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (The word 'cannot' means, he is 'incapable of'). [duh!] And in verse 7 He says, "Marvel not that I say unto thee, Ye must be born again."This is no choice and there are no alternatives. Jesus prefixed this statement with 'verily, verily', meaning, 'of a truth'...'listen to this - it is a command without retraction'.
Note that Nappy believes that one must be born naturally to escape damnation, he logically then must hold to the idea that not some, but ALL who die before being born are damned. He affirms his belief in this bit of silliness in saying,
Later in verse 15 Jesus defines who would enter heaven: "...whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." This 'whoever' is the same 'whoever' found in verse 16. These are the 'born again' ones mentioned in earlier verses. Now, how can a child who is under the so-called 'age of responsibility' possibly 'believeth in him'? Do you really know what 'believeth in him' means? The actual Greek for 'believeth', pisteuo, means to be committed to, or to put one's trust in something/someone. That is, to think something is true, by being persuaded enough to have confidence in it. This includes all aspects of the soul, including the intellect.
Which expands his wild definitions of the accursed to include all those with improperly developed intellects. He underscores his sweeping 'No Exceptions' claim,
That this command - to be born again - is an imperative is reinforced even further by the root-word for dei (which is the third person singular active present). The root is deo, which means to bind, fasten; to be under an obligation e.g. of the law. The word 'must', then, prohibits any leeway in interpretation. So, when the Lord says we must be born again, He meant it to apply to all men of any age at any time. There are no exceptions, not even the tiniest of children.
There is a definite pattern to salvation. Firstly, God elects who will be saved (to enter heaven). Then, at some point in history, the elect person is born into the world. Later, when that elect person has been regenerated, has heard the gospel and has repented, he is saved, or born again. He then 'works out' his own salvation. That is, he desires and attempts to live a holy life honouring to God. Finally, he dies and comes to know full salvation when he enters heaven. This is the pattern set out by God. Not even a small child, or an unborn infant, can break asunder what God has decreed!
<SATIRE>Yes of course those vile, evil little ankle-biters can't enter heaven! Just look at their conniving little faces, you can just SEE that they're up to no good from the second they're born! I mean, how could you enter heaven without being a 5-pointer (that IS a necessary fruit of salvation, after all)? Obviously, even a 3 year old who understands that 'Jesus loves me' and 'Jesus died for me' can't enter the kingdom of God because he can't understand the gospel according to proper Reformation thinking with all of its necessary implications of unconditional election and infant reprobation, much less the vital doctrine of limited atonement! I'd be surprised if anyone who dies before finishing seminary (or at least a good introductory course on reformation doctrine) makes it!</SATIRE>
But for all his ranting about how children are automatically guilty of sin and there are no exceptions, Nappy's rather insipid form of exegesis runs contrary to his own logic. Note above that in his pitiful attempt to exegete Luke 2:23, Nappy acknowledges that the male children born in Israel under the old covenant are in fact born without being guilty of sin (the ritual holiness that he confuses with spiritual). Yet of his contextually deficient soteriological model which he insists applies to every human being ever conceived for all time, he states,
There can be no exceptions to the rule set by God. One exception causes the entire edifice to fall.
Therefore the very exceptions that he himself admits to from the Old Testament by his own logic cause his entire doctrinal facade to fall flat as the defenses of Jericho, leaving only the real gospel message standing.
Contradiction of Crazy Doctrines
The real reason Nappy is so insistent about this issue is because it goes against his version of "reformed" doctrine,
"Why? Well, saying that someone (albeit a child) can enter heaven without knowing salvation, immediately flies in the face of election and the requirements of salvation set down by the Lord Himself. Only those who are elect will be saved. Those who are saved must hear the Gospel preached and must know regeneration and repentance. We are told that these elements are absolutely necessary for salvation, and that salvation is absolutely necessary for one to enter heaven. Yet, believers in children going to heaven simply because they are children who have not reached the age of responsibility, say they enter heaven (a) because they are not responsible, and (b) because God foreknew they would have been saved if they had lived long enough! This latter pretext is an alarming lack of reformed judgement."
Here Nappy makes his pitiable case and cites two arguments against it that are commonly used. The latter argument I don't believe myself and won't address; the former is clearly deduced from biblical precepts as I've already shown. Nappy can keep his "reformed judgment", I'll stick with the scriptures, thank you.
To say that every child would have been saved is unbelievable. Also, to think that every child had the possibility of being saved, is heresy, for it fully rejects election!
Irrelevant, and no it doesn't, see my article on election.
Remember Pharaoh? Scripture tells us that he was a marked man, elected to destruction! So, if such a man dies in infancy, does he enter heaven? No, he does not!
Logical impossibility: Pharaoh would not die till he had fulfilled God's purpose. I could just as easily turn it around and ask what would happen if one of the elect died in infancy before they could believe, to which he would respond that such would never happen -- establishing my point exactly.
Election says that God foreordained before the world was made (in eternity) those who would be saved. All others are foreordained to destruction, whether they are in the womb or out of it, and at any age. We might not like it, and we cannot reconcile it with our heart's desire, but it is nevertheless a fact of God's word.
It is nothing of the sort, but rather the delusional theology with no reference in scripture.
These instances prove the frailty and error of the case -
The more one reads Napier's blather, the more it becomes apparent that he hates the idea of anyone who is not a strict hyper-reformationist like he is being saved. He considers anything to the contrary to be giving some kind of credibility with Arminianism, concerning which his writings make it evident he is paranoid.
The True Gospel?
In an attempt to defend his blithering view of sin, Nappy even to tries change the meaning of Christ's sacrifice,
In reformed circles today we have a teaching that destroys the need for Christ's sacrifice...This teaching says that we go to hell because of the sinful deeds we commit on this earth. This is an outright heresy. We do not go to hell for our daily sins. We go to hell for the inborn state of Sin that causes the daily sins! This is fundamental to reformed thinking, yet it is missing! This is the 'original' Sin that entered the human race when Adam fell, creating an uncrossable void between Man and God.
It is this inherent Sin that Jesus died for and stood in our stead for. If daily sins sent us to hell, then no man ever born would ever enter heaven!
"Fundamental to reformed thinking?" Nappy's beliefs aren't derived from the Bible, he's a Hyper-Reformationist, and his idea of Reformation is simply a lie. Are we judged for our sinful nature, or the sins we commit? Let's see what the Bible has to say:
Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
2 Corinthians 11:15
And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Revelation 2:23
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Revelation 20:12-13
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Jude 14-15
Yeah, definitely sounds like it's saying God judges us just for being descendants of Adam. Where is that pesky scripture that says that God condemns us according to our nature, I can never seem to find it...
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures...
1 Corinthians 15:3
These passages do not say Christ died for our sinful tendencies or only our inherent sinful nature, Christ died for our sins!
But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isaiah 53:5
How much more clear does it have to be? 'Sins' is not indicative of a singular sin nature, but of all the evil acts we have done, observe the words of David, a man who well understood the grace of God,
Look upon mine affliction and my pain; and forgive all my sins.
Psalm 25:18
Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
Psalm 51:9
Just in case that isn't crystal clear:
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in [your] mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled...
Colossians 1:21
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Hebrews 9:14
What religion are you again Napster?
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1 John 3:8
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God...
Romans 3:24-25
This passage is obviously referring to sins that were committed in the past, and makes no sense if one interprets 'sins' as 'inherent sinful nature.' Nappy hasn't the foggiest idea of what he's droning on about. Yet in his little world, he views the idea of Christ not dying for our sinful acts as central.
To think otherwise is to cast God's precious gift of salvation back into His teeth. It denies the very foundation of what salvation is.
For myself, as preacher and pastor, I make sure that those who hear me understand this vital and eternal difference. It is the very essence of the Reformation. Without it we cannot make headway.
Napier's version of the Reformation is truly nothing more than a theologically inbred delusion, since it cannot even agree with the basic tenet that Christ died for our sinful deeds.
It rejects the need for Jesus Christ to die in our stead, because if only one man, as an unborn child, enters heaven without salvation, then the whole reason for the entrance into this world by God, as Messiah, is dashed to the ground.
Sheer fallacy, as the unborn have not wilfully committed sins to be saved from (though I do believe that Christ's death was necessary to cleanse their sin nature). It is we who have grown and consciously sinned that need forgiveness; I'd call that a pretty good reason, wouldn't you? Going into panic mode, Nappy seeks to raise the stakes of the debate by declaring that belief in the true gospel actually depends on agreeing with him,
In believing and teaching it, they thereby reject plain truth; they imbibe heresy and encourage others to think the same way; they reject the principles of the Reformation and of scripture; they reject election, the bastion of salvation; they reject the way of salvation; they reject God's grace. They are, by definition, teaching Arminianism, which upholds the freedom of the will - and that is heresy. Note that to teach the unequivocal entry into heaven of even unborn babies, is to teach a gospel that is no gospel. It is a false gospel that has no place within reformed churches. The emotional appeal of this false teaching might ease the mind and heart, but it does nothing for the soul, except to deceive it! Reformed men must get back to proper and true Biblical thinking. Presently, these men believe they think Biblically, but they patently do not. This can be highlighted in so many ways! To think Biblically, is to cast aside men's theories and traditions, and to embrace scriptural text as it is written, and interpreted as the Lord demands in His own word.
Yes, the very gospel itself is contingent on the fact that babies that die are consigned to the fires of the pit! Talk about good news! K.B. Napier is obviously a bitter man who hates children and knows nothing of substance about the Bible or the God who inspired it.
The Madness Knoweth No Bounds...
Among his already obvious and severe doctrinal errors, Nappy continues inspire groans with even more embarrasing exegetical and logical blunders.
We approach this subject with our emotions. God does not. He cannot, because God is not emotional! He has no human emotions, though He certainly understands them. His state is perfect and without emotional liability. Our state is flawed and sinful, and very often we cannot 'think straight' because of our emotions.
God has no emotions?? This is news to me. God is certainly able to see past His emotions and make greater than rational decisions, but He does NOT lack emotions comparable to ours.
For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God.
Deuteronomy 4:24
Also in Horeb ye provoked the LORD to wrath, so that the LORD was angry with you to have destroyed you.
Deuteronomy 9:8
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16
In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
Isaiah 63:9
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Genesis 6:6
And scores more references besides that. For one so dedicated to literal interpretations, Nappy sure can't seem to grasp the obvious.
I can partially understand the desire not to increase the burden of a bereaved parent, by saying something soothing...but to claim it to be a part of scriptural teaching is yet another matter, of gravest importance, because it totally undermines the true gospel.
There you have it again, the gospel according to Pampers actually HINGES on infant damnation. The actual reason real gospel ministers speak comfort to bereaved parents is because God has given them two things called: 1.) Tact, and 2.) Discernment; things that Nappy has no inkling of.
Nappy takes a break from his regularly scheduled arm-flapping on the rooftop accompanied by maniacal laughter to bring us yet another jewel of wisdom from betwixt his hindquarters.
It is a fact that they are called upon by the general populace to conduct weddings and funerals, etc. Yet, there is nothing in scripture to support such activities - a Christian pastor's role begins and ends with his own saved fellow Believers. Pastors have no role to play in the unsaved community.
Right. Reference please?
In an effort to comfort the bereaved they often say things that are unscriptural. This is particularly so if the dead person is an unborn or young child. What minister has the courage to teach what scripture says in such circumstances? I know of none!
Nappy must not get out much. If he's wondering why they don't speak his skewed doctrine, please see my note above on other ministers having those little things called 'tact' and 'discernment'.
But they place themselves in this awkward position by playing pastor to people who are not even saved. They also do not teach the whole of scripture as it is written, to their own congregations. That is how they fail at vital points.
And they say Monergism kills evangelism...
Reformed men who teach errors such as the above do not really understand the nature and way of interpreting scripture. They therefore deny the most basic rule - that a text should be viewed as being literal and obvious, unless the context and wording suggest otherwise.
Including quotes like, "Let the little children come unto Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Not to keep to this strict rule leads men into all sorts of spiritualised blunders.
Napier is living proof of this fact.
God cannot give one teaching that counters another of His own making! Such is impossible.
Exactly. And since God does not impute sin where there is no law (for the knowledge of sin comes by the law), then those who cannot know the law cannot be guilty of sin.
Nowhere in scripture do we find a plain text that tells us unborn babies or very small children automatically enter heaven.
And we do not find even a miniscule hint of them going to hell.
As can be clearly seen, K.B. Napier holds to a confused and biblically unsound theology that tries to turn God into a cruel and emotionless monster that reviles innocent children as much as he does. This wannabe biblical teacher claims to be logical and consistent, but begins to go at odds with Paul's discourse on the very nature and imputation of sin, and then heads straight into La-La-Land with his hyper-reformationist wackiness to the point of denying that Christ died for our sinful actions, only our sinful nature. His absurdity reaches critical mass when his own eisegesis on the holiness of Old Testament male newborns ends up producing a condition that by his own logic causes his doctrine to collapse in on itself.
Bottom Line:
-
Nappy doth greatly err, not knowing the scriptures or the nature of God, or man, or sin for that matter:
-
We are all born with a sinful nature,
-
sin is not imputed where there is no law, for by knowledge of the law is the knowledge of sin - it is for this very reason the law cannot save us,
-
conscience also serves as the law would to those not born under the law proper,
-
those without developed cognizance cannot have knowledge of the law or conscience,
-
therefore God does not impute sin to them
To my brothers and sisters in Christ, if you have lost a little one, remember that Jesus loves all the little children of the world, even the millions of despised and forgotten helpless little ones who never get to see the light of day. He loved the world so much that He died to forgive all sinners who will believe in Him of their sins, and to raise all the redeemed and innocent to immortal perfection. To a twisted, theologically self-absorbed curmudgeon like Napier, a dying little child's life is obviously a detestable thing of no value; but to Jesus the humble teacher and Savior, they are precious beyond comprehension. The very Lord who defines Himself by His unchanging love, loves all of His little children in heaven just as much as He loved them on earth.
And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them,"Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." And He took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them.
Mark 10:13-16
Someone who has not done evil by definition cannot be a sinner.
A Question of Accountability
As stated at the beginning, Nappy's case stands entirely on the delusion that children are guilty of and accountable for sin merely by existing with a sinful nature. He scoffs at the idea of an age prior to accountability.
But, what of this 'age of responsibility'? As we have already intimated, this is a Roman Catholic teaching, not a Biblical one.
David himself was deemed justified by his faith (even though he had been elected by God)...read the whole of Hebrews 11! By definition a small child does not have faith, saving or otherwise. The idea that a child is somehow pure until he reaches the age of responsibility is Jesuit/Catholic theology, not scriptural teaching.
A man who is unsaved does not enter heaven, whether he is unborn, one minute, or 100 years old. We might argue that God will not apply His own laws to babies, simply because they have made no conscious decision to sin. It is, of course, possible - but if it is, scripture does not tell us so.
Nappy's teaching if of course so much nonsense, as the scripture makes it clear that imputation of sin comes with knowledge of it. In his whacked-out pseudo-hyper-Calvinist "logic", children are born spiritually dead because of their sin nature, and are therefore subject to the wrath of God Almighty. What does the scripture actually say? It says that we are born in sin with a sinful nature and tendencies, but it does not say that sin is automatically accounted to us by God; indeed it says the exact opposite:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.)
There must be a law to break for man to sins to be counted against a man. What about those not under the Jewish law, are they exceptions?
For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)
When one does not know the law of God, we are still a law unto ourselves and our own consciences convict us as transgressors before God -- making Jew and Gentile alike sinners before God.
So we are now down to the main question: Are we born guilty, or does God count us as such when we consciously commit sin? Paul further writes:
What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which [was ordained] to life, I found [to be] unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew [me].
Paul was spiritually alive before knowing the law, but when the command of God came to him (he acquired knowledge of it), sin was revived (anazao - made alive or powerful) from its dormant state in his nature, and he died spiritually. This is a clear example and model of how spiritual death is incurred through knowledge of good and evil by the law of God;
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
For if Paul were already under the law and spiritually dead before he even understood the command of God, then he could not have been alive to be slain thereby after he understood it!
It is therefore logically impossible according to God's word that the helpless unborn, infants, and severely mentally disabled be counted as sinners by Him, for there is no law for them (no way that they can have knowledge of the law or conscience), and sin is not imputed where there is no law. It is manifest from scripture that even if a sin nature is present, apart from the law there is still no sin imputed, for while believers have a sinful nature present within us, Christ has freed us from the curse of the law, and sin is not imputed to us because despite our knowledge, we are now under God's grace instead.
"Proof" Texts
Having no solid biblical foundation for his strange jangling, Nappy resorts to badly pulling scripture out of context to try to paint infants and unborn as pure evil. You can sense from the way that he writes that Nappy is overflowing and just oozing with Christian love...oh wait, I don't think that's love...
On the subject of the sinful nature of us all, David wrote (Psalm 58):
"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."
Now THERE's a proof text for you! Congratulations Napier on achieving third-grade level reading comprehension, but he obviously has some ways left to go as he cannot recognize an obvious hyperbole when he reads it. Pretty miraculous that they can speak lies as soon as they are born, eh?
Having no emotional hang-up about the age of a person, David's response is blunt:
"Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth...let them melt away... let them be cut in pieces...let (every one of them) pass away; (like) the untimely birth of a woman, (that) they may not see the sun..."
David is, then, asking God to cut short a life in the womb, that the wicked should not even be born, to ravage society and wreak havoc. (Remember, this is God's word). He said this because he knew the true state of children.
And the craziness just continues, David is comparing the destruction of the wicked to the death of a stilborn child, not asking God to destroy an 'evil' child before it is born. Kind of hard to break their teeth before they have any, isn't it?
At birth, a child is destined to sin! Within him is the seed of evil that can show as a Hitler or, after salvation, as a Spurgeon. Look at Isaiah 48:8:
"...for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb."
That is God speaking, through Isaiah! To suggest that this is only foreknowledge is to misunderstand God and election. God foreknows, because He has predestined!
Even if you believe the tenets of Calvinism, this is still obviously referring to foreknowledge. It's called predestined because it has not happened yet, and God often refers to things by what they will be, as opposed to what they are presently.
"And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger."
Additionally, in Nappy's "God foreknows because He has predestined", there are inherent problems. For whom God foreknows He predestinates to be conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29); so if he foreknows because He predestinates as Nappy says, but predestines whom He foreknows as scripture says, we are stuck with quite a logical mess if we believe both. That's not a golden chain, it's an infinite loop!
The intrinsic sinfulness of men is shown in Hoseah 9:11: "(As for) Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception." Thus, Ephraim's 'glory' was destroyed at conception.
Nappy displays new depths of contextual ignorance by pulling a scripture about God punishing the Israelites by bereaving them and trying to twist it into "evidence" for his unscriptural theology.
See what God says about sinful men, as babies, in Hosea 2:4,5: "...I will not have mercy upon her children; for they (be) the children of whoredoms. For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully". Note that - God Himself said He will not have mercy upon the children.
And he just keeps the stinkers coming. In this passage God is referring to Israel by analogy as a harlotrous wife, and will not show mercy to the people (children) of Israel because of their national sin.
Jesus said: "...Except a man be born of water and (of) the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5). That is, he must be born not only physically, but spiritually. If all children go to heaven, then what of "Ye are of (your) father the devil..."? (John 8:44).
They are "of their father the devil" because they wilfully commit wickedness,
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
- which the very young are manifestly incapable of doing.
And what of David's honest appraisal in Psalm 51:5: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."? In Galatians 3:22 we see that everyone is bound by sin unless they believe: "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."
Already addressed the issue of sinful nature vs sinful actions, and the reason that the scripture concludes all under sin is because of our committing sinful deeds.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
'Sinned' refers to past action, not a state of being; that type of action being what alienates us from God (Colossians 1:21). It is indeed for our sins that we are condemned, not merely our anscestry. It does not say, "all are born of Adam, and fallen short of the glory of God", but "all have sinned." Being born of Adam does indeed lead to falling into sin once the difference between good and evil is recognized (hence, in Adam all die); but despite their relation, the two are distinctly different things. Napster won't quit there though,
In 4:1-3 the sinfulness of children is underlined: "Now I say, (That) the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But he is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world." Here the text properly combines both natural children and unsaved men (called 'children' in this text) as being the same - both are under the law and are bound to do the things of the world.
Children have a sin nature, if you will recall, no one is arguing that point. This does not mean that God holds them guilty of sin before they actually commit it, nor does it make them under the law before they understand it, else Paul's discourse about being killed through the law is totally meaningless.
1 Corinthians 15 tells us that we are all born in 'dishonour' with 'natural' bodies that cannot enter heaven. How, then, can a child enter heaven merely on the merit of being under a certain age? There is no such merit or excuse given in any of scripture.
Of course a natural body can't enter heaven, no one's can until it is changed. One who is young enters heaven by the fact that God does not account sin to them, not by virtue of age. One who is extremely mentally disabled or born without brain waves commits no sin even if their vital signs continue for a century, whereas a normal child of ten or twelve years old can easily commit sin and be consigned to hell. Nappy tries to set up a strawman, but simply won't recognize that age isn't the issue.
Problematic Passages
Nappy then attempts to downplay or explain away any passages of scripture that are contrary with his bizarre theology.
The proof texts used to support such a notion are spiritualised or badly interpreted, paying scant regard to the meanings of words themselves, or to the context they appear in. Nor do they pay attention to the rest of scripture, which fully and bountifully outweighs any such claims.
(Speaking of king David's discourse after losing his young son in 2 Samuel 12:23) The actual text only says the obvious...that the child was dead and cannot return to David, but David will one day die like the child. Nothing more. The words 'I shall go' (halak) mean just that - but can bear the meaning of dying or departing. (It is similar to yalak, which can also bear the idea of dying). This is what the whole context is saying - whilst the child is incapable of being alive, David will eventually die and be in a like state. To make it mean the child was taken to heaven is an extrapolation. It is also a denial of the very core of Biblical teaching on salvation.
Not an extrapolation at all, for David hoped to be reunited with his child, but knew that it would happen only when he died. The very structure of David's statement that he would go to his child instead of the child returning to him carries with it intrinsically the idea of being united with his son personally at a future time just as he longed for in the present.
But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
He would, as he stated, go to his son -- not merely to the grave. What sense does it make in that context for a grieving parent to say "I can't bring him back, but I'll die one day too"? David's statement is utterly senseless if such a meaning is applied to it. The bereaved king was obviously referring to seeing his newborn son again one day when they will awake in God's likeness.
(speaking of John the Baptist being filled with the Spirit in his mother's womb) Though elected, he still had to live righteously. To say that such men were born sinless is to reject the fact of man's total and utter depravity, as taught in scripture. Can you see the problem with saying a child can enter heaven without first having his sin dealt with and his earthly salvation assured? The problem is that we then make that child equal with Christ, sinless and without corruption. Scripture tells us that, apart from Adam and Eve, only Jesus was born sinless.
No one's arguing that children are born sinless (i.e. without a sin nature), and we have already seen that sin is not imputed to those with no law.
Another kind of text used as 'proof' by believers in the automatic salvation of children, is found in the New Testament, where Jesus talks of 'little children'.
Oh boy, Nappy's about to produce another steamer...
One text wrongly alluded to is Matthew 18:1. It is often used in sermons to refer to the salvation of children, but it is nothing of the sort! Jesus was using Hebrew idiomatic teaching here to illustrate something. At this time and on other occasions the disciples were debating who would be Jesus' 'right hand man' in heaven. To settle the dispute Jesus called a child to His side as a visual aid.
He told them that unless they repented and turned away from their sin (be saved) they could not enter heaven. They must 'become as little children'. So, he was referring to adults becoming like children...He was not referring to the children themselves, only to their propensity to trust. Note that they must 'become as'. That is, become child-like (not childish), trusting Him implicitly. Without this total trust (faith) they would not enter heaven. To make this mean little children automatically enter heaven because of this trust in adults, is to extrapolate wildly. ...There is a big difference between being 'child-like' and 'childish'!
Funny, He didn't seem to be indicating that they were merely an idiom for trust. The Lord said,
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Little children are innocent, pure, and trusting. Though they have a sinful nature in them (as even believers still do), God does not hold accountable for sin because they have no knowledge of the law. Those who enter the kingdom of heaven become as little children: Though still being possessed of a sinful nature, we walk in the Spirit and do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, and through complete trust in Christ we are not accounted with sin because through Him we are no longer under the law.
It's also funny to observe Nappy's words on children trusting,
Can you see that a tiny child cannot have this faith (trust)? As we 'must' (an imperative) be born again and believe, we have no option but to disregard the idea of children automatically going to heaven.
So children are only used as an idiomatic expression of being trusting but cannot themselves trust God in any sense. Yeah. Okay.
In what is probably the most stunning display of his ignorance of biblical scholarship, Nappy blunderingly confuses ritual holiness (setting apart) under the Old Testament law with spiritual holiness,
We see in Luke 2:23 that "Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord". In its context this refers to the Old Testament order of things, concerning males born to Hebrews, the chosen nation. Such a statement no longer applies.
Where did this hack learn principles of biblical interpretation? Off the back of a cereal box? Nevertheless, let the record show that Nappy does in fact teach that under the Old Testament law, males were born holy. This will come into play shortly.
No Exceptions!!
Being all but completely ignorant of the teachings of scripture, Napier begins frantically ranting about the impossibility of exceptions to his dichomatic formula of salvation.
If we are conceived in sin, God cannot, by His own decrees, take a child into heaven merely because he has died. It is simply not possible. That child must be born again. There are no exceptions.
- they certainly do not support the idea that all children go to heaven...any child who enters heaven does so only if he has been elected and he has, in his tender years, been born again.
To be 'born again' is to be born naturally, and then, when one has heard and considered the gospel message, is saved. Look at John 3, verse 3. Jesus said: "...Except (or, 'unless') a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (The word 'cannot' means, he is 'incapable of'). [duh!] And in verse 7 He says, "Marvel not that I say unto thee, Ye must be born again."This is no choice and there are no alternatives. Jesus prefixed this statement with 'verily, verily', meaning, 'of a truth'...'listen to this - it is a command without retraction'.
Note that Nappy believes that one must be born naturally to escape damnation, he logically then must hold to the idea that not some, but ALL who die before being born are damned. He affirms his belief in this bit of silliness in saying,
Later in verse 15 Jesus defines who would enter heaven: "...whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." This 'whoever' is the same 'whoever' found in verse 16. These are the 'born again' ones mentioned in earlier verses. Now, how can a child who is under the so-called 'age of responsibility' possibly 'believeth in him'? Do you really know what 'believeth in him' means? The actual Greek for 'believeth', pisteuo, means to be committed to, or to put one's trust in something/someone. That is, to think something is true, by being persuaded enough to have confidence in it. This includes all aspects of the soul, including the intellect.
Which expands his wild definitions of the accursed to include all those with improperly developed intellects. He underscores his sweeping 'No Exceptions' claim,
That this command - to be born again - is an imperative is reinforced even further by the root-word for dei (which is the third person singular active present). The root is deo, which means to bind, fasten; to be under an obligation e.g. of the law. The word 'must', then, prohibits any leeway in interpretation. So, when the Lord says we must be born again, He meant it to apply to all men of any age at any time. There are no exceptions, not even the tiniest of children.
There is a definite pattern to salvation. Firstly, God elects who will be saved (to enter heaven). Then, at some point in history, the elect person is born into the world. Later, when that elect person has been regenerated, has heard the gospel and has repented, he is saved, or born again. He then 'works out' his own salvation. That is, he desires and attempts to live a holy life honouring to God. Finally, he dies and comes to know full salvation when he enters heaven. This is the pattern set out by God. Not even a small child, or an unborn infant, can break asunder what God has decreed!
<SATIRE>Yes of course those vile, evil little ankle-biters can't enter heaven! Just look at their conniving little faces, you can just SEE that they're up to no good from the second they're born! I mean, how could you enter heaven without being a 5-pointer (that IS a necessary fruit of salvation, after all)? Obviously, even a 3 year old who understands that 'Jesus loves me' and 'Jesus died for me' can't enter the kingdom of God because he can't understand the gospel according to proper Reformation thinking with all of its necessary implications of unconditional election and infant reprobation, much less the vital doctrine of limited atonement! I'd be surprised if anyone who dies before finishing seminary (or at least a good introductory course on reformation doctrine) makes it!</SATIRE>
But for all his ranting about how children are automatically guilty of sin and there are no exceptions, Nappy's rather insipid form of exegesis runs contrary to his own logic. Note above that in his pitiful attempt to exegete Luke 2:23, Nappy acknowledges that the male children born in Israel under the old covenant are in fact born without being guilty of sin (the ritual holiness that he confuses with spiritual). Yet of his contextually deficient soteriological model which he insists applies to every human being ever conceived for all time, he states,
There can be no exceptions to the rule set by God. One exception causes the entire edifice to fall.
Therefore the very exceptions that he himself admits to from the Old Testament by his own logic cause his entire doctrinal facade to fall flat as the defenses of Jericho, leaving only the real gospel message standing.
Contradiction of Crazy Doctrines
The real reason Nappy is so insistent about this issue is because it goes against his version of "reformed" doctrine,
"Why? Well, saying that someone (albeit a child) can enter heaven without knowing salvation, immediately flies in the face of election and the requirements of salvation set down by the Lord Himself. Only those who are elect will be saved. Those who are saved must hear the Gospel preached and must know regeneration and repentance. We are told that these elements are absolutely necessary for salvation, and that salvation is absolutely necessary for one to enter heaven. Yet, believers in children going to heaven simply because they are children who have not reached the age of responsibility, say they enter heaven (a) because they are not responsible, and (b) because God foreknew they would have been saved if they had lived long enough! This latter pretext is an alarming lack of reformed judgement."
Here Nappy makes his pitiable case and cites two arguments against it that are commonly used. The latter argument I don't believe myself and won't address; the former is clearly deduced from biblical precepts as I've already shown. Nappy can keep his "reformed judgment", I'll stick with the scriptures, thank you.
To say that every child would have been saved is unbelievable. Also, to think that every child had the possibility of being saved, is heresy, for it fully rejects election!
Irrelevant, and no it doesn't, see my article on election.
Remember Pharaoh? Scripture tells us that he was a marked man, elected to destruction! So, if such a man dies in infancy, does he enter heaven? No, he does not!
Logical impossibility: Pharaoh would not die till he had fulfilled God's purpose. I could just as easily turn it around and ask what would happen if one of the elect died in infancy before they could believe, to which he would respond that such would never happen -- establishing my point exactly.
Election says that God foreordained before the world was made (in eternity) those who would be saved. All others are foreordained to destruction, whether they are in the womb or out of it, and at any age. We might not like it, and we cannot reconcile it with our heart's desire, but it is nevertheless a fact of God's word.
It is nothing of the sort, but rather the delusional theology with no reference in scripture.
These instances prove the frailty and error of the case -
The more one reads Napier's blather, the more it becomes apparent that he hates the idea of anyone who is not a strict hyper-reformationist like he is being saved. He considers anything to the contrary to be giving some kind of credibility with Arminianism, concerning which his writings make it evident he is paranoid.
The True Gospel?
In an attempt to defend his blithering view of sin, Nappy even to tries change the meaning of Christ's sacrifice,
In reformed circles today we have a teaching that destroys the need for Christ's sacrifice...This teaching says that we go to hell because of the sinful deeds we commit on this earth. This is an outright heresy. We do not go to hell for our daily sins. We go to hell for the inborn state of Sin that causes the daily sins! This is fundamental to reformed thinking, yet it is missing! This is the 'original' Sin that entered the human race when Adam fell, creating an uncrossable void between Man and God.
It is this inherent Sin that Jesus died for and stood in our stead for. If daily sins sent us to hell, then no man ever born would ever enter heaven!
"Fundamental to reformed thinking?" Nappy's beliefs aren't derived from the Bible, he's a Hyper-Reformationist, and his idea of Reformation is simply a lie. Are we judged for our sinful nature, or the sins we commit? Let's see what the Bible has to say:
Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Yeah, definitely sounds like it's saying God judges us just for being descendants of Adam. Where is that pesky scripture that says that God condemns us according to our nature, I can never seem to find it...
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures...
These passages do not say Christ died for our sinful tendencies or only our inherent sinful nature, Christ died for our sins!
But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
How much more clear does it have to be? 'Sins' is not indicative of a singular sin nature, but of all the evil acts we have done, observe the words of David, a man who well understood the grace of God,
Look upon mine affliction and my pain; and forgive all my sins.
Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
Just in case that isn't crystal clear:
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in [your] mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled...
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
What religion are you again Napster?
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God...
This passage is obviously referring to sins that were committed in the past, and makes no sense if one interprets 'sins' as 'inherent sinful nature.' Nappy hasn't the foggiest idea of what he's droning on about. Yet in his little world, he views the idea of Christ not dying for our sinful acts as central.
To think otherwise is to cast God's precious gift of salvation back into His teeth. It denies the very foundation of what salvation is.
For myself, as preacher and pastor, I make sure that those who hear me understand this vital and eternal difference. It is the very essence of the Reformation. Without it we cannot make headway.
Napier's version of the Reformation is truly nothing more than a theologically inbred delusion, since it cannot even agree with the basic tenet that Christ died for our sinful deeds.
It rejects the need for Jesus Christ to die in our stead, because if only one man, as an unborn child, enters heaven without salvation, then the whole reason for the entrance into this world by God, as Messiah, is dashed to the ground.
Sheer fallacy, as the unborn have not wilfully committed sins to be saved from (though I do believe that Christ's death was necessary to cleanse their sin nature). It is we who have grown and consciously sinned that need forgiveness; I'd call that a pretty good reason, wouldn't you? Going into panic mode, Nappy seeks to raise the stakes of the debate by declaring that belief in the true gospel actually depends on agreeing with him,
In believing and teaching it, they thereby reject plain truth; they imbibe heresy and encourage others to think the same way; they reject the principles of the Reformation and of scripture; they reject election, the bastion of salvation; they reject the way of salvation; they reject God's grace. They are, by definition, teaching Arminianism, which upholds the freedom of the will - and that is heresy. Note that to teach the unequivocal entry into heaven of even unborn babies, is to teach a gospel that is no gospel. It is a false gospel that has no place within reformed churches. The emotional appeal of this false teaching might ease the mind and heart, but it does nothing for the soul, except to deceive it! Reformed men must get back to proper and true Biblical thinking. Presently, these men believe they think Biblically, but they patently do not. This can be highlighted in so many ways! To think Biblically, is to cast aside men's theories and traditions, and to embrace scriptural text as it is written, and interpreted as the Lord demands in His own word.
Yes, the very gospel itself is contingent on the fact that babies that die are consigned to the fires of the pit! Talk about good news! K.B. Napier is obviously a bitter man who hates children and knows nothing of substance about the Bible or the God who inspired it.
The Madness Knoweth No Bounds...
Among his already obvious and severe doctrinal errors, Nappy continues inspire groans with even more embarrasing exegetical and logical blunders.
We approach this subject with our emotions. God does not. He cannot, because God is not emotional! He has no human emotions, though He certainly understands them. His state is perfect and without emotional liability. Our state is flawed and sinful, and very often we cannot 'think straight' because of our emotions.
God has no emotions?? This is news to me. God is certainly able to see past His emotions and make greater than rational decisions, but He does NOT lack emotions comparable to ours.
For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God.
Also in Horeb ye provoked the LORD to wrath, so that the LORD was angry with you to have destroyed you.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
And scores more references besides that. For one so dedicated to literal interpretations, Nappy sure can't seem to grasp the obvious.
I can partially understand the desire not to increase the burden of a bereaved parent, by saying something soothing...but to claim it to be a part of scriptural teaching is yet another matter, of gravest importance, because it totally undermines the true gospel.
There you have it again, the gospel according to Pampers actually HINGES on infant damnation. The actual reason real gospel ministers speak comfort to bereaved parents is because God has given them two things called: 1.) Tact, and 2.) Discernment; things that Nappy has no inkling of.
Nappy takes a break from his regularly scheduled arm-flapping on the rooftop accompanied by maniacal laughter to bring us yet another jewel of wisdom from betwixt his hindquarters.
It is a fact that they are called upon by the general populace to conduct weddings and funerals, etc. Yet, there is nothing in scripture to support such activities - a Christian pastor's role begins and ends with his own saved fellow Believers. Pastors have no role to play in the unsaved community.
Right. Reference please?
In an effort to comfort the bereaved they often say things that are unscriptural. This is particularly so if the dead person is an unborn or young child. What minister has the courage to teach what scripture says in such circumstances? I know of none!
Nappy must not get out much. If he's wondering why they don't speak his skewed doctrine, please see my note above on other ministers having those little things called 'tact' and 'discernment'.
But they place themselves in this awkward position by playing pastor to people who are not even saved. They also do not teach the whole of scripture as it is written, to their own congregations. That is how they fail at vital points.
And they say Monergism kills evangelism...
Reformed men who teach errors such as the above do not really understand the nature and way of interpreting scripture. They therefore deny the most basic rule - that a text should be viewed as being literal and obvious, unless the context and wording suggest otherwise.
Including quotes like, "Let the little children come unto Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Not to keep to this strict rule leads men into all sorts of spiritualised blunders.
Napier is living proof of this fact.
God cannot give one teaching that counters another of His own making! Such is impossible.
Exactly. And since God does not impute sin where there is no law (for the knowledge of sin comes by the law), then those who cannot know the law cannot be guilty of sin.
Nowhere in scripture do we find a plain text that tells us unborn babies or very small children automatically enter heaven.
And we do not find even a miniscule hint of them going to hell.
As can be clearly seen, K.B. Napier holds to a confused and biblically unsound theology that tries to turn God into a cruel and emotionless monster that reviles innocent children as much as he does. This wannabe biblical teacher claims to be logical and consistent, but begins to go at odds with Paul's discourse on the very nature and imputation of sin, and then heads straight into La-La-Land with his hyper-reformationist wackiness to the point of denying that Christ died for our sinful actions, only our sinful nature. His absurdity reaches critical mass when his own eisegesis on the holiness of Old Testament male newborns ends up producing a condition that by his own logic causes his doctrine to collapse in on itself.
Bottom Line:
Nappy doth greatly err, not knowing the scriptures or the nature of God, or man, or sin for that matter:
We are all born with a sinful nature,
sin is not imputed where there is no law, for by knowledge of the law is the knowledge of sin - it is for this very reason the law cannot save us,
conscience also serves as the law would to those not born under the law proper,
those without developed cognizance cannot have knowledge of the law or conscience,
therefore God does not impute sin to them
To my brothers and sisters in Christ, if you have lost a little one, remember that Jesus loves all the little children of the world, even the millions of despised and forgotten helpless little ones who never get to see the light of day. He loved the world so much that He died to forgive all sinners who will believe in Him of their sins, and to raise all the redeemed and innocent to immortal perfection. To a twisted, theologically self-absorbed curmudgeon like Napier, a dying little child's life is obviously a detestable thing of no value; but to Jesus the humble teacher and Savior, they are precious beyond comprehension. The very Lord who defines Himself by His unchanging love, loves all of His little children in heaven just as much as He loved them on earth.
And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them,"Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." And He took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them.