Whose Way is Fair? A Reply to Steve Camp on Infant Damnation

J.C. Thibodaux

I came recently across the writings of a certain Steven J. Camp, a Christian musician who's apparently fallen for a particularly ridiculous brand of Reformed Theology. Camp's Essay How Wide is the Narrow Road? (retrieved from http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-wide-is-narrow-roadthe-gospel-of.html ) is not without its merits, arguing effectively against inclusivism (the belief that those who have never heard the gospel are still saved apart from Christ), but it drops off the sanity chart when he argues that God's condemnation to eternal fire, by default, must extend to the mentally disabled, infants who die, and even children who never get a chance to experience life outside the womb. His discourse is so full of unscriptural eisegesis and logical errors that he even ends up effectively attacking God's sovereignty and omniscience to defend his crazed version of Calvinism.


Camp lays out the three areas he addresses,

1. All babies and children who haven't reached the "age of accountability" upon their death are granted special grace and receive instant heaven;

2. All those who are mentally incapacitated, mentally retarded, or incapable of cognitive reasoning, all that have not reached a "condition of accountability" will upon their death be granted special grace and receive instant heaven; and,

3. Those who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, and therefore, could not reject in unbelief what they never had a chance to believe in the first place, are not condemned, but are also granted special grace and receive instant heaven.

To which I answer 'yes,' 'yes,' and 'no,' respectively. As indicated before, I agree with Camp on the third issue and will not argue that point directly in this essay. Concerning the first issue he writes,

This is the most sensitive and vulnerable of areas--do all babies (born or unborn) including young children upon their death immediately go to be with the Lord? The tendency is to quickly assure them that their child is with the Lord and free from the sufferings and pains of this world. And in saying so, give them hope. But to give this kind of well-intentioned dogmatic assurance without clear support from the Scriptures, is to be biblically irresponsible though said in a very heartfelt, compassionate, and pastoral way.

As we'll show directly, Camp is the one being biblically irresponsible, rejecting the testimony of the prophets and the teachings of the apostles in favor of superstitious, philosophical fantasies dreamed up by men who lacked even a fundamental understanding of the difference between guilt from innocence.


Do the Scriptures clearly, without equivocation, teach that all children (born and unborn) who haven't reached what is commonly referred to as an "age of accountability," receive a special exception of grace for eternal life?

Better question: Is there even a hint that they are judged guilty of some sin they never committed and go to hell? This is a methodology that Camp adopts throughout this essay, he asks if the Bible is unequivocally clear on something to cast doubt on it, then proceeds to offer his own dogma with no relevant scriptural proof (else none at all).


Is there sound biblical support to say with, absolute certainty, that all children (unborn and born) go to heaven upon their death?

Of course. Let's start with what the scriptures actually say about how guilt and spiritual death are incurred.

Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another-to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. (Romans 7:4-5)

Notice that the sinful nature in us is not in and of itself what slays us, but through the law the sinful nature produces carnal passions, through which men commit sin and die spiritually as a result. This scriptural concept is confirmed by James,

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. (James 1:13-15)

In other words, just having a sinful nature doesn't kill you, we die from the sin that the it produces. At first glance, this may seem like splitting hairs, much like the humorous parachutist's adage, "It's not the fall that kills you, but the sudden stop at the bottom," but the distinction is key here, since not everyone comes to maturity enough to act upon said nature. But the issue really isn't any mystery, Paul settles it once and for all:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. (Romans 7:7-12)

Notice several facts revealed here:

1. Apart from the law, sin is dead
2. Paul was alive once without the law, he wasn't conceived or born spiritually dead
3. Sin 'took advantage' of the law, so to speak, and produced evil desires in him (which lead to evil action); so when the commandment came to him, sin became alive and he died spiritually

The key factor here is the law, for it's by the law that one even has the knowledge of sin.

Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)

The law is indirectly what kills one spiritually, since God does not account sin apart from it,

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned- (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)

So then the scriptures tell us,

1. Sin is not imputed where there is no law (apart from the law, sin is dead)
2. By the law we understand what sin is
3. By the knowledge we have from the law, sin arouses wicked desires in us
4. Evil desires give birth to sin
5. Sin brings forth spiritual death

The Bible very plainly and crystal-clearly paints a far different picture from the 'you're guitly by nature' silliness espoused by those who check their spiritual discernment at the door for superstitious nonsense dressed up as theology.

The only case we haven't covered then is those without the law: What about those who do grow up and fall into sin, yet don't have the revelation of God's law? If transgression is imputed to us through the law, then why did spiritual death fall upon Adam's descendents who didn't sin in the same way he did, even before Moses received the law from God? Paul answers this early on,

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. (Romans 2:12-16)

Therefore not having the law proper is no excuse, since God puts a basic understanding of good and evil within the human heart through conscience, not the compelling commandment given at Sinai, nor the full revelation of Jesus Christ, but enough to condemn a sinner of any nation to hell. This would leave the only exceptions as those who don't have any capacity to understand law or conscience, which would encompass the severely mentally disabled and children who die too young to receive the law in any sense, and therefore to whom God does not impute sin since He does not impute sin apart from the law. To say that they are condemned as sinners apart from any knowledge of the law or commandment of God (much less any actual commission of sin) is to reject the clear teachings of the scriptures on the imputation of sin, to call Paul a deceiver concerning his account of sin killing him through the law in Romans 7, and to label James a liar and false teacher when he states that it's sin brought on by our wicked desires that produces death.

This then constitutes the nature of justice in the eyes of Almighty God: Sinners earn His wrath, those who haven't sinned do not; those who have sinned He has provided a way of pardon through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God does not convict sinners based upon who they are, but what we have done.

If you say, "Surely we did not know this," Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds? (Proverbs 24:12)

The proponents of this inane 'inherited guilt' doctrine, in their opposition to the justice of the God revealed in scripture, raise several quite superficial objections:

Lame Objection #1: If children suffer for the actions of their parents, then why shouldn't we infer that they inherit their guilt?

Many times, the sinful actions of men will bring consequences upon their physical descendents (this is often seen in scripture), such is not necessarily an indication of personal guilt, since such sentences are temporal and in the flesh, and thus based upon one's fleshly associations, just as believers, while being in Christ spiritually, still incur the fleshly penalty of physical death by virtue of being Adam's physical descendants. Eternal damnation is a spiritual judgment based upon spiritual associations, namely, partaking in humanity's rebellion against God begun by Adam, which is achieved by committing sin. There is absolutely no basis in scripture for the idea of eternal judgment based solely upon fleshly association. Therefore, temporal harm wrought as collective punishment for a corporate crime does not indicate personal guilt of wrongdoing on the part of the one punished. David plainly illustrates this concept with his words when God struck Jerusalem for his sin:

Then David spoke to the Lord when he saw the angel who was striking the people, and said, "Surely I have sinned, and I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Let Your hand, I pray, be against me and against my father's house." (2 Samuel 24:17)

The vast gap and incomparability between corporate punishment and personal guilt are also clearly seen when God pronounced His curses upon Jeroboam,

"The dogs shall eat whoever belongs to Jeroboam and dies in the city, and the birds of the air shall eat whoever dies in the field; for the Lord has spoken! Arise therefore, go to your own house. When your feet enter the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he is the only one of Jeroboam who shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something good toward the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam." (1 Kings 14:11-13)

Notice that while Jereboam's young son died as a result of his father's sin, it was part of a temporal and collective punishment of his father's wicked house, based merely upon his fleshly association, and did not reflect upon him personally. On a personal level, God indicates that He was pleased with what he saw in the young child, and for this granted that he be the only one of Jereboam's house to have an honorable burial, and I think it not undiscerning to conclude from God's words that the child enjoys the presence of the Almighty even now.

I might add that God is not unjust to punish one man by killing his subordinates or descendents (which are again, fleshly ties), since the physical lives God has granted us are a privelege which He may revoke at will, not a right. On the practical side, also note that temporal death is nothing in comparison to, and therefore cannot be directly correlated with eternal damnation. While death in the physical sense (being the king of terrors and the end of mortal life) is excellently analogous for eternal condemnation (the second death), it doesn't follow that because a person dies physically for the sins of someone else that it must also imply that we suffer eternal condemnation on the same basis, the two sentences being very far from equal and not necessarily connected, since one may incur one apart from the other (Acts 7:59, Revelation 20:10, we'll touch on this more below). The principle of temporal blessing/cursing based upon temporal associations can also be seen when God extends special temporal favor to an unrepentant sinner based upon parentage,

...because they have forsaken Me, and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the people of Ammon, and have not walked in My ways to do what is right in My eyes and keep My statutes and My judgments, as did his father David. However I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand, because I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of My servant David, whom I chose because he kept My commandments and My statutes. (1 Kings 11:33-34)

Notice again that this form of mercy was based upon fleshly and national association, and for a time curbed temporal judgment. Again, temporal identification with David was no reflection on their personal righteousness, for the men of Judah themselves were wicked and unfaithful, demonstrating clearly that partaking in the corporate punishments or blessings given in this life are not necessarily an indication of one's ultimate standing before God.


Lame Objection #2: Aren't we born in sin? Doesn't that make us sinners from birth?

'Absolutely' and 'no way,' respectively. A child being born with an inherently depraved nature is not the same thing as him being able to act upon it, or having sin imputed to himself. We are born with the seeds of destruction in us, but death itself is brought about by committing sin, as James 1 states. Denial of the inherited guilt myth is not a denial of depravity (original sin), simply the bold declaration that God is a just (as well as sane) Judge.


Lame Objection #3: Don't all spiritually die in Adam?

Most of the proof-texts employed by those who push Camp's ludicrous and unscriptural version of original sin center around texts which talk about spiritual death coming through Adam. However, such do not really constitute proof of automatically inheriting Adam's guilt, since being guilty of our own sins is perfectly in accord with our death coming through Adam, observe:

Since logically speaking,

A -> B -> C -> D (example: I'm in the Sears Tower -> I'm in Chicago -> I'm in Illinois -> I'm in the United States),

then by the rules of logical implication,

A -> D (example: I'm in the Sears Tower -> I'm in the United States).

So the idea,

Adam sinned -> Adam died spiritually and his nature was corrupted -> his descendents inherited his sinful nature -> his descendents are enticed by their wicked nature -> his descendents sin -> his descendents die spiritually as well

can also be expressed as,

Adam sinned -> his descendents die spiritually as well

as well as,

his descendents inherited his sinful nature -> his descendents die spiritually as well

Thus it isn't incorrect to say we spiritually die because of Adam's sin, or that we are dead because of our sinful nature (hence we are by nature children of wrath, more directly because of what we by that nature do). A chain of sequential events can be truthfully shortened for emphasis or expression of an idea, as long as the events are still in order. Therefore it is quite correct in the personal accountability view to state that spiritual death does come through Adam.


Lame Objection #4 (taken from Camp's essay directly): By the way, what is the age of accountability? Is it age five, ten, or thirteen?--the year a young Jewish male attained religious adulthood in Judaism known as the Bar mitzvah? [that age for a girl in Judaism is twelve.] Again, Scripture doesn't say.

Camp asks,

The age of accountability simply means that there will be a time when a child has matured to an age that he is morally responsible and culpable for his own actions and can fully understand the gospel, his own sin, who the Lord is, what is repentance, faith, grace, etc. to inherit salvation. Up until that time, the child is seen as in a state where they are not culpable spiritually and upon their death are granted instant heaven. Not one proponent of this kind of teaching can cite one verse, anywhere in Scripture, where this is taught. Not one--and that should be a spiritual red flag.

Camp is obviously very poorly researched in this area, since we've already been able to produce substantial and airtight evidence that spiritual death is incurred through knowledge of the law and the committing of sin. 'Age of accountability' is not some fixed time in every child's life, as Camp pretends, but the age where understanding God's law and sin is in force.


Attributing Rational Thought to Emotionalism

Camp addresses David's words when his child died in 1 Samuel 12, calling it "A Sentimental Hermeneutic." Camp's presuppositions land much closer to the 'mentally-retarded hermeneutic' range.

It's hard to fathom, but that little phrase, "I shall go to him..." is the foundational Scriptural evidence given to forming this doctrinal conviction.

It's not really foundational, just a fairly obvious truth given who God has revealed Himself to be.

Most evangelicals who hold to this belief, assert that David was stating an immutable theological truth, "That my son is in heaven, as all children are in heaven, and one day I will go to him." What is surprising to many of us who do not hold to this view, is that this application of this one verse resembles more of a prooftexting than it does a clear exegesis of the text.

This text interpreted in that fashion, may come from what I call a "sentimental hermeneutic." David is not expressing in those words a theological certainty; he is expressing grief and a desire to be with his son. This is a common emotion in a time of death especially when the loss was attributed to his own sinfulness. To make it something more seems out of context within the text.

'Out of context'?? When Camp gets around to actually reading the context, perhaps he can ably comment on the subject. David's statement was not some half-grief-crazed emotional outburst, but well-thought out and stated matter-of-factly:

He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." (1 Samuel 12:22-23)

That's the context. By this point, David was clearly no longer grieving. His statement about him going to his son was no more a flighty, sentimental fancy than his preceding declaration that his son wouldn't return to him in this life. David was expressing that despite his tragedy, he was confident in who God was and the mercy He shows, which is readily apparent if one understands what God is really like, something that Camp may one day comprehend if he ever incorporates the scriptures from either Testament into his theology.


In the section entitled, My Hope Lies in the Savior--Not in the Circumstances (which thought forms part of the basis for Camp's attacks on God's omnipotence and omniscience later on), he states,

....Our hope in times of hopelessness should not rest in the confidence of where our loved ones might be for eternity, but, in the Lord Himself. God is Sovereign working all things for our good and His glory. And that is where we all must ultimately find our solace, comfort, resolve, and hope.

Camp's arguments break down completely here: If his distortion of God's justice were true, then there could be no comfort in who He is. Someone who considers it 'justice' to damn little ones for all eternity based upons sins that they neither committed nor were able to even understand in a logically incoherent attempt at gaining more 'glory,' bears no resemblence to the wonderful God of scripture at all. Such a concept is no comfort in the least, but revolting and vile when compared to the truly glorious Lord revealed in scripture, who loves little children.

If David was stating an immutable doctrinal truth above, then why did he agonize over the foretold death of his son if heaven awaited him with absolute certainty and with David's full knowledge of it (especially in light of the sinfulness of this situation)?

And yet further proof that 'reformed' fundy extremism leads to increasingly demented reasoning: "If his child was going to heaven, why would he agonize over his death?" Wow, that's brilliant Camp, that must be why folks who do believe in age of accountability never agonize over children's deaths. Now that Camp has firmly demonstrated the true nature of the logic that drives his bizarre philosophy, its sanity is no longer in question -- now it's merely a matter of fathoming just how truly deranged it is.

Camp:
"I will go to him" is simply the longing of a grieving father over the death of his son to somehow be reunited with him. It is the desperate desire of his broken heart, not the laying down of doctrinal essentials.

Wrong again. As we've already pointed out, David's mourning ended when he learned his child had died. He was at this point going back into his normal routine and not driven by his emotions.

So David arose from the ground, washed and anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. Then he went to his own house; and when he requested, they set food before him, and he ate. Then his servants said to him, "What is this that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive, but when the child died, you arose and ate food." And he said, "While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." (2 Samuel 12:20-23)

David had cried all his tears, spent all his grief he had. Emotions are dead at such a point and all one has left is either the deep-seated hope of God or despair. Indeed, his boundless confidence and conviction of the hope of God for his child was exactly why he didn't fall into such utter hopelessness as his servants expected he would do (vs 18), instead he got up, cleaned himself up, worshipped God, and started eating again, his grief overcome. Only a man confident of the mercy of God to the child wrought by his sin could behave in such a manner unexpected to the world, such strength isn't even conceivable for a truly loving parent who believes that his child has now likely entered the pits of hell. Camp's scripturally impotent and retarded baby-damnation theology simply cannot provide one such assurance, only despair, in that it sadistically replaces the world's uncertain hopelessness at the tragedy of a child's death with a mere narrow sliver of hope (it's the 'narrow road,' right Camp?) that he or she may be with God, but the far more likely prospect of its suffering in hell for all eternity just because God has nothing better to do. Talk about 'amazing grace.'

Camp can try to mitigate the compelling declaration of the man who knew the grace of God so well into ineffectual fluff. By campy logic, David's now-past grief apparently led him to irrationally state 'biblically irresponsible' concepts. He then goes on to make a ridiculous caricature,

David, is not saying, "I know I blew it with Bathsheba,

No kidding Sherlock, he didn't even mention Bathsheba.

...and I know as part of my punishment my child will suffer and die. But in the end everything is good because we will all be united one day in heaven. It will be a sweet reunion--all's well that ends well."

Yeah, heaven forbid we think God to be just or merciful. Of course David wasn't putting a happy face on all of it; God-fearing parents of children who die young may meet in the hereafter, but that doesn't magically make all the pain go away in the now. The fact that Camp could even pen such ignorant drivel that cannot be correlated to reality makes it unmistakably clear that he hasn't a solitary clue as to the subject he's writing about.

David didn't stoop to such reasoning or make light of his sin and the consequences of it.

Frustrating Camp's frenzied attempt to nullify the scriptures, David was clearly reasoning quite soundly when he spoke these words, How recognizing who God is would constitute making light of sin must be another one of those mysteries Calvinists are always talking about.

With those whom I have counseled in this area there is some doubt as to the salvation of their loved ones or friends, especially when involving young children, I have recommended that they go to the Psalms...

Which were largely written by the same guy who said the 'biblically irresponsible' stuff in 1 Samuel 12 (by Camp's reasoning).

...and immerse themselves in the rich and immutable character of our loving, just, and holy God.

Damning those who have no cognizance of wrongdoing is the antithesis of what God has revealed as loving, condemning those innocent of committing sin is anything but the holiness that God displays.

Can a corrupt throne be allied with you- one that brings on misery by its decrees? They band together against the righteous and condemn the innocent to death. (Psalm 94:20-21)

Such traits are those of a corrupt ruler, not the just and righteous God. By the standards of righteous judgment revealed in His word, a 'god' who would burn little children for his pleasure has no more 'character' than Molech, that detestable idol coincidentally being famous for that very thing.


True Justice: Whose Way is Fair? God's or Calvin's?

Camp asks,

Why would God punish an "innocent--guiltless" child when it is only "the soul that sins [who] dies?" (Cp, Ezekiel 18:20)?

If he's trying to use this to imply that infants have sinned because they sometimes die, it's simply ridiculous prooftexting, since the verse states,

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

It's "The soul who sins shall die," not, "The soul who dies has committed sin." Contextually speaking, the passages is contrasting men to their adult children. The silly facade Camp is apparently erecting tries to forcefully beat it into some all-encompassing declaration of physical death denoting guilt of sin. He's going to have a lot of trouble interpreting the rest of the passage with that monkey hermeneutic, since the very next verse states,

But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. (vs 21)

By that line of reasoning, then that must mean that those who turn from their sins won't suffer physical death! Such 'logic' would make some of the more extreme members of the Word-Faith movement question one's sanity. Even worse for Camp's theology Ezekiel 18 isn't making reference strictly to God's judgment and physical death, but carries eternal implications: Unrighteous and righteous men (even the One that was purely righteous) experience physical death. The righteous may even suffer and die as part of a collective punishment based on worldly ties, just as infants sometimes do,

'Thus says the LORD: "Behold, I am against you, and I will draw My sword out of its sheath and cut off both righteous and wicked from you. Because I will cut off both righteous and wicked from you, therefore My sword shall go out of its sheath against all flesh from south to north...' (Ezekiel 21:2b-3)

But His individual judgments separate the two: the righteous will not perish eternally as the wicked do. The call to turn back to God isn't just for a happier now, but unto eternal life in His glorious presence. He does not judge us individually based upon our earthly parentage, as verse 18 states, it is the Calvinists who embrace the superstition of inherited guilt who say along with unbelieving Israel,

'Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?'

To which God replies concerning His righteous judgment of each man for His own sins,

"...is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?"

This of course should be quite obvious to anyone who has ever read the scriptures,

For He is coming to judge the earth. With righteousness He shall judge the world, And the peoples with equity. (Psalm 98:9)

The King's strength also loves justice; You have established equity; You have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob. (Psalm 99:4)

The very definition of justice is to punish those who have committed wrong and reward those who have done right. God repeatedly states that He will judge the world in equity and give to each man according to his works, yet Camp's brand of fundy Calvinism pipes up that God must suddenly adopt some mysteriously nonsensical and egregiously unscriptural kind of completely arbitrary 'justice,' foregoing His righteous principles of meting out punishment to those who sin, and instead declaring, "Well, you never actually did anything since you never made it past the womb, but your daddy was a sinner, so I'm gonna punish you as well just because!" Such an atrocity isn't true 'justice' in any sense of the word.


Original Sin

Camp contends,

The heart of the issue is a biblical and clear understanding of the nature of man. When Adam sinned in the garden of Eden was the guilt and sin credited to his posterity as our federal representative?

Is such a concept as Adam's guilt being passed to his children automatically ever stated in scripture?

Or are we free moral agents not thoroughly corrupted or polluted by Adam's fall until we actually commit acts of sin ourselves? It is the former and not the latter that is the truth of it.

Consider these following verses:

Indeed we shall.

"Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12);

Exactly. It doesn't say 'because Adam sinnned,' but 'all have sinned.' We're held accountable for our own sins, not Adam's.

"through the offense of one (man) many be dead (5:15); "the judgement was by one (offense) unto condemnation"(5:16); "by one man's offense ( or by one offense) death reigned by one" (5:17); "by the offense of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation" (5:18); "for by one man's disobedience many were made sinners" (5:19); "in Adam all die" (1 Cor. 15:22).

Of course, for his one sin corrupted us and caused us to sin (and thereby incur spiritual death) as well, as we showed above. We agree that it was Adam's sin that put the drive to sin in his descendents, and hence the single sin in the garden produced a cascade of death and condemnation that came upon the human race. It doesn't follow that his descendents are inherently guilty of his sin without having committed any of their own.

In the "all" are also contained children (born and unborn).

Baloney. There are contextual limitations on the word 'all.' Note that one of the passages he cites is,

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)

If I might point out the fairly obvious blunder that Camp's making, if the 'all' in these passages encompasses all people everywhere (even the unborn and infants), then by Camp's logic, would that not lead us to the conclusion that all people everywhere will be made alive in Christ? The same unwarranted widening of the scope of 'all' is exactly the method of argumentation that Universalists employ to twist scripture.

Another logical difficulty is that it says all die in Adam, which constitutes an event that occurs. If we are conceived guilty and therefore already dead, then we cannot die in that same sense --what's already spiritually dead can't spiritually die. Therefore to incur spiritual death, one would have to be, as Paul stated in Romans 7:9, 'alive once.'


How do we know this? Because all children die and death is the wages of sin (Romans 6:23). If all children were given a special grace for salvation before this imaginary 'age of accountability,' then no child would die until he had reached that age.

Oh boy, and now he can't discern spiritual/second death from physical. Physical death and sin are not necessarily correlated.

* Enoch never died physically
* Likewise Elijah was taken up without seeing death
* Paul tells us, Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.... (1 Corinthians 15:51)
* While Christ took carried our sins for us, He Himself was innocent of any wrongdoing, and still died.

It therefore does not follow that physical death and sin are necessarily tied together, one may occur without the other.

Consider this: Why did the Lord command that all people, including children, should be executed following the battle at Jericho?

Oh heavens, someone slept through apologetics 101. The children of an accursed enemy couldn't be properly assimilated into Hebrew society, they would have had no future but slow and agonizing deaths by starvation and neglect; not to mention the fact that falling under the temporal punishment of a family or governmental group is entirely different than incurring eternal guilt based upon someone else's actions (as we've already established). Furthermore, God quickly and mercifully ending their certain suffering is a far, far cry from tormenting them for eternity (done in the exact opposite spirit no less). I just got a call for Camp from the Raving Atheists's Society, they're demanding that he return their arguments against God's character.

Why is it that Sodom and Gomorrah were not spared because of all the innocent children in the city?

I recall God stipulating 'righteous men,' not 'ignorant children.' Actually reading the scriptures would help Camp's theology immensely.

If all children who have ever lived, regardless whether they are from Christian or non-Christian families, are under an 'age of accountability' and have a special grace for salvation from the Lord, why don't we see evidence of that in Scripture? That's a legitimate question that all those that affirm such should be able to clearly answer with the same dogmaticism that they assert when proclaiming this view.

If they're all conceived spiritually dead, then why do no such statements exist in scripture? If Camp's going to assert his view on original sin so dogmatically, then he should at least be able to produce a single hint from scripture that clearly supports inherited guilt from Adam, which doesn't easily comport with the view that we die spiritually because we actually commit sin.

William G.T. Shedd says in his excellent "Dogmatic Theology:" "In Romans 5:14 some who die, namely infants, 'did not sin after the similitude of Adam's first transgression.' That is, they did not repeat the first sin. They must, therefore, have sinned in some other manner because they are a part of the 'all' who sinned...

In Calvinism, 'all means all' only when it applies to things that they want it to apply to, it means 'some' when applied to whom God extends grace to be saved.

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." (John 12:32)

Camp:
"...and because they experience death which is the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23a)."

Do they seriously not see that it's talking about spiritual death, which is made quite obvious in the following chapter (Romans 7:1-6). If they keep this nonsense up, soon they're going to have to develop an 'animal sin imputation' doctrine to explain why hamsters kick the bucket...though I must admit that the prospect of 'mosquito damnation' is rather tempting.

"The only other conceivable manner of sinning is that of participation in the first sin itself. But participation in Adam's first sin is not the repetition of it by the individual."

One can participate in sins of another indirectly, Christ told the generation He was in that the blood of the prophets would come down on their heads (Luke 11:50), but this wasn't due to some hoodoo-voodoo mystical and unconditional imputation based upon parentage, but their willing participation in and approval of their wicked acts (verse 47 and on).

The total guilt of the first sin, thus committed by the entire race in Adam, is imputed to each individual of the race because of the indivisibility of guilt.

If they want to complain about 'age of accountability,' where exactly does 'indivisibility of guilt' appear in scripture? Notice also that he's trying to slip in another equivocation: he tries to make the point that the guilt from Adam's sin is by 'participation' in it, which Shedd insists is "not the repetition of it by the individual," yet Camp states that Adam's sin is "committed by the entire race" -- how in the world can one 'commit' a prior sin that he does not repeat? Camp's logical fallacy and word-games become apparent when he insists that we are guilty by nature, merely by being children of Adam, hence he equates "committing Adam's sin" with "being conceived a child of Adam"...leading to the inescapable conclusion that this ridiculous view of sin turns the active 'committing sin' into the passive 'being conceived;' 'conception' has now become 'transgression'!


Camp:
One man is as guilty as another of the whole first sin, of the original act of falling from God. The individuals Adam and Eve were no more guilty of the first act and of the whole of it than their descendants are; and their descendants are as guilty as they.

If guilt is so 'indivisible,' then why does God not hold the children of sinners responsible for their parents' sins as Ezekiel 18 states? And again, where is there any scriptural basis for such an assertion?

Conversely, the same principle applies to the indivisibility of merit.

And where exactly does such a concept as 'indivisibility of merit,' from which he argues, appear in scripture?

The merit of Christ's obedience is indivisible, and the whole of it is imputed to every individual believer alike. All alike receive by faith the total worthiness of their Lord's obedience, not a fractional part of it.

When did fractional parts enter into this? Note that just as with the guilt of sinfulness, salvation isn't just dropped upon someone, but is conditioned upon faith (Acts 26:18).

As the unmerited imputation of Christ's obedience conveys the total undivided merit of this obedience to each and every believer, so the merited imputation of Adam's disobedience conveys the total undivided guilt of the disobedience to each and every individual of the posterity.

Not so, since something being conditional has nothing to do with it being 'divided.' Since the righteousness of Christ is conditioned upon being identified with Him through faith, then it's not absurd to conclude that being guilty along with Adam is conditioned upon joining his willful rebellion against God through sin (confirmed by James 1, Romans 7, cited above). Again, scripture doesn't state 'it's because one guy sinned and everybody got blamed for it,' but,

...just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned... (Romans 5:12)


Camp:
The first sin of Adam, being a common, not an individual sin, is deservedly and justly imputed to the posterity of Adam upon the same principle upon which all sin is deservedly and justly imputed, namely that it was committed by those to whom it is imputed. 'All men die; because all men sinned," says Paul. All men fall. Some men are redeemed.

This is simply mindless equivocation. First of all, even Romans 5:14 which Shedd cites above states that many people, "did not sin after the similitude of Adam's first transgression," and yet now he's telling us that Adam's sin in fact was "committed by those to whom it is imputed." Such an assertion is easily proven faulty by the very proof-texts Calvinists often employ.

And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls).... (Romans 9:10-11)

How would they be guilty from conception if they had up to that point done nothing good or evil? If they had done no wickedness yet, then they by definition had not sinned, and since they had not sinned, then it's not logically feasible to equate just being conceived as a child of Adam with 'committing sin,' clearly making such an assertion into babbling equivocation on Shedd's part. Such an imputation is not just, but totally contrary to God's way of justice that He declares in rebuke of the superstitious sinners who insist that children should be accountable for their parents' guilt.

Even the scriptures he cited for his case above declare,

...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.... (Romans 3:23)

Yet children in womb have not yet sinned -- "[not] having done any good or evil," the only scriptural conclusion we can come to is that we fall short of God's glory not due immediately to sin inherited from Adam, but because we commit our own sins (which ultimately spring from Adam's) --real, active, willful sin-- not the foggy, imaginary mumbo-jumbo that Shedd tries to ascribe to the unborn, which scripture plainly denies.


When the sinner is convicted by the truth and Spirit of God, he does not excuse or extenuate his guilt on the ground of his past unconsciousness in sin. It is on this ground that Samuel Hopkins contends that infants are moral agents:

"Many have supposed that none of mankind are capable of sin or moral agency before they can distinguish between right and wrong. But this wants proof which has never yet been produced. And it appears to be contrary to divine revelation. Persons may be moral agents and sin without knowing what the law of God is or of what nature their exercises are and while they have no consciousness."

One may unwittingly violate tenets of scripture, but Christ makes it unmistakably clear that true sin proceeds from the heart.

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man.... (Matthew 15:18-20a)

Isn't that rather obvious? Becoming aware of sin by the law, it is then every man's personal responsibility to repent and believe (for unrepentance even over unintentional wrongs brought to light is sinfulness); it does not from that follow that God must suddenly impute sin apart from the law, contrary to His word.


Camp goes on to try to equate depravity with guilt,

One of the great Reformational truths is that man, all of mankind without exception, is totally depraved--totally unable to save himself by his own works of righteousness or moral goodness. This is the truth the biblical writers have written: we are all conceived in sin, dead in trespass and sin, sons of disobedience and by nature children of wrath (Cp, Psalm 51:4-5; Romans 3:10-18; Ephesians 2:1-3).

Again Camp employs very shallow equivocation. We are, as we've already pointed out by the rules of logical implication, children of wrath by our nature, since our nature is what drives us to transgress and incur such wrath. But having such a nature by itself doesn't make one a sinner apart from actually committing iniquity, for a sinner is by definition someone who has committed/is committing sin. Depravity itself isn't the commission of sin, but rather what fuels it. No one is legally liable for being scum until they willingly act upon such impulses, this is plainly just. One may be innocent without being infallible, Adam certainly was. The other passages he cites don't really present any difficulties either, as we don't deny that we're conceived or born in sin, for all have a sinful nature. The substance of what separates us from God is not nature, but what that nature ultimately produces:

And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled.... (Colossians 1:21)

We are not alienated from God by a singular, collective sin performed millenia ago that's mysteriously dropped onto our individual charges. Such a concept is alien to scripture. We are, according to God's word, separated from Him by our wicked works.

We are not ultimately sent to hell solely because of unbelief; for our unbelief is the fruit of our unregenerated state--not the root of it.

Camp pushes the standard Calvinist view of regeneration prior to faith, I won't belabor this point, but it doesn't fit the scriptural record, which states that we are raised through faith.

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12)

Further problems with this belief have been well-addressed at Ben Henshaw's blog.


Camp then begins his attack on God's sovereignty and omniscience to back his theology, observe carefully that his arguments completely hinge on the idea that if people aren't magically born guilty, then God suddenly must have no free will, and must be powerless to either a.) foreknow, or b.) control circumstances:

Camp:
Robbing God of His Free Will and Unconditional Election

If we say, beloved, that there is an age that renders us "not guilty" and presents us "worthy" before a holy God to receive eternal life, and because of that pre-condition God is obligated to grant me eternal life, then we have robbed God of His unconditional electing love and stripped Him of His sovereign free will.

How would such a thing strip God of free will if God Himself was the one who chooses to give people life, and chooses not to impute sin apart from knowledge of the law in the first place? God choosing to not impute sin no more makes one inherently 'worthy' of eternal life than it makes him 'worthy' of being created at all.

The salvation of some special group then is dependent not solely on God's grace, but on their "predisposed condition." Unborn children, infants, young children, children... all under the "age of accountability" are now granted salvation because their predisposed condition of being unborn, an infant, a young child, etc., demands that God must make it so.

God doesn't have to grant anyone anything. If God wanted a legal basis to condemn anyone, all He has to do is let them live to the age of accountability. Implicit in Camp's 'God has to' argument is the idea that God is too impotent to control the circumstances of the child's death. God makes the circumstances, God sets the rules, and God is in control: to complain that some unforseen or uncontrollable circumstance would force Him to do anything is to flatly deny His control or knowledge over the situation. I wonder if they'd also argue that Adam must have been guilty of sin even before he ate the forbidden fruit, since if he weren't guilty before then, that must mean that God would be 'forced' to regard him as innocent based upon a 'predisposed condition,' which apparently 'robs God of His free will' in Camp's view.

Are we to believe that God must always respond to them with redemption--that He has no choice until they go beyond this age of accountability in which some morphed spiritual transformation occurs by which culpability is now mystically placed on the child? One minute, they are under God's special grace regardless of nature or action because of age; and then the next minute, spiritually depraved under judgment? Isn't this a schizophrenic view of the nature of man and original sin?

Camp again employs an obvious strawman by assuming it's a literal numeric 'age' and not 'understanding,' revealing the level of his ignorance concerning what he so blindly argues against.

In other words, the salvation of young souls has now become a work tied to their predisposed state;

Since when is being in a state a 'work'? More nonsensical equivocation....

it is their condition of age, not God's grace, that is the foundation for their guarantee of eternal life--until they go beyond that age.

Camp has strung together one of the stupidest strands of incoherency I've seen this side of the New Age movement, effectively concluding that God choosing not to impute sin apart from the law (Romans 5:13) must constitute Him having no free will. We are accountable when we understand the nature of our sin and willfully commit it; hence, culpability isn't 'mystically placed' upon anyone, as a person coming to willful commission of a punishable act is beyond all argument culpable (as opposed to the impution of eternally punishable guilt of some distant ancestor, which spits in the face of both sound logic and the divine justice that God reveals). God didn't have to grant anyone eternal life. Despite the fact that He does do so for infants and young children, there's one simple fact that Camp fails to take into account with his 'God has no free will' theology: God is in control of the circumstance, it's a little attribute of God I like to call 'sovereignty.'

Sadly, in an attempt to salvage his pitiably incoherent theology, Camp unwittingly paints God as some poor, weak-minded deity who just can't control these things, who would, if not for His divine 'right' to arbitrarily declare people guilty of sins they didn't commit, be completely powerless to stop them from coming through the pearly gates.

The God I serve is over all, and not a sparrow falls apart from Him permitting it to be so (Matthew 10:29). Because of this, circumstances are also under His control, and any child that dies to whom He grants eternal rest could just as easily have been allowed to grow up and incur wrath if He had wished it.

[For the record, I seriously doubt Camp actually believes that about God, though that's what his argument inescapably amounts to.]

Camp's whole argument about God's free will then is utterly pointless and absurd, since God has created everything, sets the initial conditions, foreknows, and ultimately is in control of all circumstances, He is not 'forced' to do anything. Contrary to Camp's absurd theology, God's free will is not freedom to be inconsistent with His own principles or pervert His own justice in capriciously declaring non-sinners to be sinners. Such a campy argument amounts to no more than complaining that lack of inherited guilt makes the way God operates different from what fringe Calvinism teaches, which is all the more reason to deny such an error.


On the section, "Condition of Accountability," the case is generally the same as for infants.


Camp:
The Narrow Way Still Under Construction
Let's recap a bit: We have a narrow way and a narrow gate according to our Lord Jesus Christ and few are those that find it (Matt. 7:13-14). But now we also have a child way and a child gate; an unborn way and an unborn gate; we also have now a "I haven't reached the 'age of accountability' way and gate; and we have also, a "I don't understand and therefore haven't reached the "condition of accountability" way and gate. The narrow road has seemingly been widened to include age and mental soundness.

Camp completely stretches and misapplies the scriptures here. The narrow gate is the way of salvation for sinners, not the unborn or mentally invalid. They're non-players, so to speak, since they haven't done good or evil as Romans 9 clearly indicates, they're on neither the broad nor narrow path, which implies a walk, not an inherent state. Can Camp's logic possibly get more convoluted?

Camp:
Abortion, The Greatest Source of Evangelism?

I am going to scream. 'Evangelism?' What is he talking about? Evangelism implies the spread of the gospel, which abortion is not. This argument begs the question of Camp's delusional view of original sin, i.e. that infant's need to believe on someone they have no knowledge of, and repent for sins they haven't yet had the chance to commit, so they can be pardoned for crimes that have nothing to do with their own actions.

This is why this is such a grave concern. In an actual (but my paraphrased) Q&A session with a prominent evangelical pastor, a pregnant woman asked if all babies go to heaven when they die? The pastor answered, "Yes." She followed up by asking about unborn children. The same answer was given. She then rightly asked, "so what you are saying is, is that I can guarantee the salvation of my children by aborting them...is that correct?" To which the pastor replied, "Yes."

That answer to many of us was shocking.

If that is true ladies and gentlemen, then to show the absurdity of the end of that kind of logic,

Shocking? He apparently doesn't get out much. If it weren't so sad it would be humorous: a guy who has no reservations about a perfectly loving and just God burning babies in hell for all eternity for sins someone else committed thinks he knows something about the conclusions of faulty logic? Let's examine a bit further where Camp's 'logic' leads, shall we?

...we should not picket abortion mills and call them to repentance for the holocaust they have launched since 1972 because of Roe v. Wade; we should thank them, we should praise them for now abortion has become the single greatest source of evangelism the world or the church has ever known!

No more than we should be singing the praises of Nero for sending so many saints on their way to glory more expediently, and providing the witness of their martyrdom which aided in the spread of the gospel throughout the world. Talk about stupid arguments.

Now again, I know that no one who supports these exceptions believe or practice the outrageousness of the example just given. But doesn't such assertion that this claim contends, demand such a farfetched conclusion if we are being honest to its legitimacy?

Nope. As with most people who don't think objectively or rationally, Camp merely argues by outrage and attempts to oversimplify the issue, failing to consider all factors involved. If one were to actually subscribe to the massive leaps of logic that Camp employs, given that, "to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8), it would seem perfectly 'logical' to all don our Nike's and commit mass suicide in our beds so we can go be with Him quicker.

To re-emphasize: If our lives, according to James, are nothing but a puff of smoke, "a mere vapor", then compared to eternity, why wouldn't people want to guarantee the salvation of their children's souls if they could? Again, the absurdity of the statement begs its unthinkable conclusion.

So by Camp's own one-dimensional logic, given favorable conditions, we in fact ARE to do evil that good may come (contra Romans 3:8). Such reasoning as he employs is not rooted in faith, its absurdity being plainly demonstrated by the facts:

1. God commands us not to murder (we want to have eternal life ourselves too, which murderers don't have)
2. We love our children and want to see them live their lives and grow up to serve God in this world as well
3. The world would get rather lonely if we kept that up, the good news never equates 'salvation' with 'extinction'

Is he really so totally oblivious to basic logical and scriptural principles that such things need to be spelled out for him? The fact that he even gives any credence to the viability of this whole, "Duh, if your kids wouldn't go to hell, then it would be good to kill them now" madness plainly demonstrates that Steve Camp's logic is not only unsound and unscriptural, but not even remotely sane.

As I'd pointed out above, if God didn't want a child to die before coming to the age of accountability, then He simply wouldn't allow it to be killed. Camp's argument flatly assumes that God won't work through means in these instances, which is ironic coming from a Calvinist. Without the means factor, the logical conclusion of Calvinism is that its futile to evangelize (which hyper-Calvinists often accept). Yet it's by the same sort of crazed, hyper-Calvinist logic that Camp makes his case here.

Should it be a shock that God would upset the sin of abortion by bringing its victims into His kingdom? He turned a boy being sold into slavery into provision for the ancient world, he turned an enraged killing into an escape that ended up freeing His people from bondage; and He turned the grossest injustice ever to occur on the entire planet into eternal salvation! That's right folks, the worst miscarriage of justice ever brought about life for the world! If our God can turn the most heinous crime in history into the hope of millions, it makes one wonder why Camp throws such a hissy-fit about so many aborted babies in heaven.

Apparently disgusted at the thought of abortion ushering so many children to eternal rest, Camp hardly presents a more favorable scenario. God, in his view, apparently creates countless millions for the express purpose of being slaughtered and then judged unconditionally guilty of eternal fire before they have the first clue as to what's going on. Going by Camp's reasoning, God apparently just gets a massive kick out of millions of kids unconditionally suffering complete, total, and eternal neglect: They're given to awful parents who care nothing for them, brought to a doctor who apparently hasn't read the Hippocratic oath and makes a career out of cutting them to pieces and crushing their skulls, sent to the angry and inexplicably furious presence of an uncaring God who has hated them from eternity past and created them just so He could eternally damn them. So before they are even aware of what's going on, they are arbitrarily tried, convicted for the sin of someone they never knew, sentenced to the flames for eternity, all so God can display His 'glorious justice' against multitudes... too young to know how to suck their thumbs... right. Camp then musters the nerve to argue that 'Jesus loves the little children of the world' has problematic implications.

God, in campy theology, now not only exhaustively decrees, but furthers and extends the cruel actions of the abortion doctors by Himself afflicting the unborn with worse calamity and suffering than sinners ever could, spitefully sentencing them to everlasting torment in proportions that a psychopathic quack could only dream of. What kind of mickey-mouse justice is that?? Such madness as Camp teaches does nothing to bring glory to God, but unfairly and fraudulently paints Him as a cruelly arbitrary and sickly tyrannical monster.

But God is much bigger than Camp's hyper-fundamentalist theology, which makes men's wickedness out to be just too imposing and evil for God to control or commandeer in showing His goodness to the neglected. The Lord can take a bad thing that men do and pull good out of it, He can turn sorrow into joy, and has a wonderful and beautiful sense of justice; it will be quite a sight to see, as all those precious children whose lives were snuffed out, the ones whose parents didn't want them, enjoying the presence of their heavenly Father forever, while their wicked and haughty parents who unrepentantly threw them aside as refuse are themselves cast into everlasting fire. Iniquitous men have laid the death sentence upon these children, but our God neither approves of nor furthers their putrid and cruel ends, but by His mighty hand has confounded them and overturned their wicked judgments in His perfect justice! The first are now last, and the last first: those who cried in helpless anguish now laugh, as those who pitilessly laughed at their plight now weep! Hallelujah! Now THAT is the magnificent and infinite justice of the God of the Bible, the Almighty Avenger of innocent blood!


Miscellaneous Dumb Remarks

Camp:
God has no say in this; He is bound by their condition, not by His own unconditional electing love; He has now been made a respecter of persons and is obligated to give, not just to some, but to all without exception--eternal life.

Camp again assumes that God must be weak and powerless to push his Calvinism. He also displays a marked ignorance about what being a 'respecter of persons' is. A respecter of persons is one who shows partiality in judgment, basing the decisions upon who people are rather than what they have done.

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." (Acts 10:34-35) [emphasis mine]

But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who "will render to each one according to his deeds": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. (Romans 2:5-11)

Judging people by who they are rather than what they actually do is the very definition of having 'respect of persons.' Camp's ridiculous theology goes as far as to accuse God of showing partiality for not punishing people who haven't sinned!


You might be thinking by now that if all of these people due to their own unfortunate situation or condition are not granted eternal life, is that fair? Is God being just and kind and merciful? How could a loving God send a baby, someone who is mentally deficient or completely ignorant of the gospel to be punished forever in a living hell?

Paul answers those questions with absolute clarity. "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad- in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-"The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (Romans 9:11-23).

Standard, typically misinterpreted, Calvinist proof-text which doesn't touch the issue of infant damnation. It does however, as pointed out above, show that sin is not committed from the womb. Such punishment would be unfair since condemning those who haven't sinned is an abomination to God.

He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. (Proverbs 17:15)


Camp:
Here the Apostle Paul removes the doubt doesn't he? "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated." And this was determined before the twins were born.

Yep, election according to foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2) is an amazing concept.

Do all babies go to heaven? Paul has just clearly defined it for us, hasn't he?

Camp clumsily attempts to compare apples to oranges in support of his view, tripping up on the obvious difficulty of comparing those who die in infancy to those who are born and grow to adulthood. From the fact that God is sovereign, it doesn't follow that He must somehow now condemn those who haven't rebelled against Him. Such is a cheap attempt at trying to get God's infinite power to override His immutable character. That's not who God is - He uses His power to establish justice, not pervert it.

After a brief appeal to mystery, Camp comments,

Is there any injustice with God? No! It doesn't depend on the one who runs or the one who wills, but on God who makes some vessels for His mercy and some for His wrath. The thing made can never say to the Potter, "why have you made me like this?" And whether a vessel of wrath or a vessel of mercy, God will be glorified; for He is perfect in His justice and perfect in His grace and there is no contradiction.

Which is exactly why I don't believe that God damns infants. Vessels of destruction show the qualities of destruction, for that's the reason God reveals His wrath against them,

For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Ephesians 5:5-6) [emphasis mine]


Camp goes on,

Let's bring this to what we have been discussing. When we speak of infants (all children born or unborn) and those without sufficient mental capacity to reason, then we must leave the decision for their eternal outcome in God's hands to exercise His sovereign freedom.

Once again he mitigates God's power and knowledge to deliver an ultimatum in support of his view of God's 'freedom' to pervert what He Himself has defined as justice, while Camp simultaneously buries his head in the sand as to what the scriptures say concerning guilt and sin.

It doesn't depend on whether or not you have or haven't reached an "age of accountability" or even achieved or not achieved a "condition of accountability." One may be prepared for destruction or one may be prepared for glory; but that again, is the sole right of our Sovereign Lord to determine by His unconditional electing love and grace and we must rest in that truth.

Which is code for his nonsensical view of, "it's not what you do, it's who you are that's the basis of whether God condemns you." Of course Camp's going to urge us to 'rest' in his insipid redefinitions of 'love' and 'justice,' for further inquiry and examination of the issue will inevitably demonstrate that such doctrine is incompatible with what is taught in the Bible. Camp continues to push his view of a weakened God to bolster his case.


Camp: Here I Stand

God help you.

The main focus and concern of this article has been to challenge biblically the unsubstantiated dogmatic assertions that God is somehow "spiritually handcuffed" - making Him eternally obligated, without exception, to save all those who by nature of their predisposed condition of age or mental incapacity under the plumblines of an "age of accountability" and a "condition of accountability" to eternal life.

Which we've shown to be an unfathomably stupid strawman of massive proportions on Camp's part.

It is the dogmatic inflexibility about these matters that is most troubling; especially in light of the undisputed fact that Scripture is not.

Amusing how Camp is so 'troubled' by the scriptures not stating directly that dying infants go to heaven, yet he himself dogmatically pushes the idea of inherited guilt not only without any solid, scriptural support, but directly contrary to them. He displays the typical, egocentrism I run across all the time, the standard-issue "I'm just preaching the truth, everybody who opposes me is dogmatic!" childishness that commonly marks teachers of exceedingly bad doctrine that can't stand up to scriptural examination.

It is unthinkable to me that God is not afforded the exercise of His own free will in the unconditional election of His people to salvation--but is bound by the predisposed condition of others due to the confines of age or mental sufficiency.

And it's apparently quite thinkable to him that God would drop infants into eternal flames for His glory. Thankfully, what Camp finds 'thinkable' isn't any sort of standard for, or reflection of rational thought and sound doctrine. Perhaps when he learns how soverign God truly is, he'll be better equipped to understand God's control over both the circumstance and conditions that relate to individuals.

Where Scripture is not explicit, we must find contentment in the character of our holy God and rest in the truth that He is working all things after the councel of His will for His pleasure and for His glory alone.

Which now in Camp's view, mysteriously involves giving credence to the idea of our infinitely loving God burning babies for His good pleasure. Talk about 'glorious.'


Camp ties it up with several things he affirms, but ends up sending some confusing signals:

I do not believe that all in these exception categories[infants, mentally deficient], are elected to hell;

and,

I do believe that any mentally competent adult who has never been exposed to or heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ, perishes in their sin for "no man is without excuse" - and God is just.

I'll assume he meant to write "no man is with" on that last point.

It's interesting to note the necessary logical implications of his faux guilt theology; accepting that, then he must ultimately accept one of the following as well:

1. All people who die in infancy perish in hell (which he apparently doesn't believe).
2. Infants can experience forgiveness of sin apart from faith in Christ (contra Romans 3:25).
3. God must miraculously produce faith in at least some infants before they die, which he seems to suggest.
For the third suggestion, there is zero evidence. But more interesting yet is the dissonance in the two points:

What essential difference is there, in his theology, between the ignorant unregenerate and those who die in infancy?

If he's so adamant that those who haven't heard are under condemnation and are "without excuse" (which I'm not criticizing, I agree with him there), then on what basis does he conclude that infants might even possibly be saved? He boldly declares that we are not guilty because of what we do, but because of who we are, so how would infants who die in ignorance differ fundamentally by Camp's brand of 'justice' from adults who die in ignorance. In his view, they are,

* both just as guilty
* both just as dead as if they'd committed Adam's sin themselves
* both fully deserving of damnation

The inexcusability of the adult heathen is superfluous in such a view, since there's no exception of any kind possible anyway --inability to comprehend or willfully commit sin would be complete non-issues as neither one changes anything about the state of the person's impending condemnation. So if he accepts that God might just "show mercy" to infants and mysteriously/indefinably produce saving faith in them apart from the hearing of the gospel, then how can he possibly deliver any kind of reasonable objection against those who would suggest that God mysteriously/indefinably produces saving faith in the heathen (either during their lives or at the point of death) apart from hearing the gospel? Such inconsistency in Camp's theology could be explained if, deep down, he realizes that those who commit sin willfully are truly without excuse, but that there's something just fundamentally and nauseatingly heinous about incinerating newborns. Through waving his inherited guilt talismans in a paranoid attempt to ward off the phantoms he perceives as widening the narrow road, Camp indirectly opens the door to actual inclusivism.


Camp:
Take heart in this beloved, that the Lord from before the foundations of the earth has known His own; and He will not lose one of them. Christ on the cross propitiated the Father, redeemed His own and brought us into peace with God forever. Nothing can separate us from His love.

Red herring of the most ridiculous variety. This is essentially saying, "Don't worry about your dying child, just be happy that God functions in the arbitrarily irrational, baby-damning manner that my Calvinism says He does!" Thoroughly worthless.

If you have gone through the loss of a child, or someone who has been mentally handicapped their entire life, or maybe you are burdened about what happens to others that have never heard the gospel before and have died, how do you get resolve in those uncertain and painful situations?

Believing what the Bible says, and thus rejecting Camp's twisted and unscriptural theology is a good start.

Run to the character of God and fix your heart and mind on who He is.

And rejoice knowing that your child who never saw his first sunrise or couldn't even say her own name is more than likely barbecuing in the pits of Gehenna for the express purpose of putting a big smile on God's face.

"I have heard many such things; miserable comforters are you all!" (Job 16:2)

The unbiblical, check-brain-at-door 'comfort' Camp prescribes is no comfort or consolation at all, but a horrific misrepresentation of who the God who defines Himself by His love and justice has revealed Himself to be.

Know that He is Sovereign and will work all things for His glory and our good.

Oh, I see, if we don't inherit guilt, God is powerless to stop people from entering heaven, but if He's got some addled basis to unconditionally impute sin to those who've never committed or understood it, He magically becomes sovereign again! (Rah! Rah! Yipee skipee!) And, of course God works things out for your good...unless of course you're not one of the elect, then He's pretty much just working to rub salt in your wounds. Once again Camp can offer nothing more than inconsequential red-herrings and empty, theologically tainted 'comfort' that would send maggots gagging.

This is called faith.

Faith is believing what the scriptures tell us, not abhorrent fairy tales.

When the Scriptures seem silent on an issue such as these,

then it might help if you actually read them, instead of immersing yourself in campy theology.


What's sauce for the goose....

As stated earlier, Camp throws a lot of stones with the 'you can't show me this directly in the Bible' canard, but can himself show absolutely no support, implied or otherwise, for many of the concepts he touts.

All children (born and unborn) under the "age of accountability," all mentally incapacitated--anyone, who does not meet the "condition of accountability" and all those who are frozen in the ignorance of unbelief are elected, without exception to eternal life;

...it seems in lack of biblical certainty, that it would be unloving to extend to someone "absolute assurance" where Scripture itself is not absolutely clear.

I wonder if Camp ever has doubts about the Trinity because the scriptures never use the word or aren't "absolutely clear" enough for his unstudied method of biblical interpretation. Hey! It never explicitly forbids cannibalism either!

Here is the Nexus of the Issue:
Can God save little children--infants, even unborn babies--and grant them saving-faith and grace through Jesus Christ the Lord for salvation if He so wills?

Better question: Is there any biblical evidence of such a thing occurring?

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? (Romans 10:14)

Camp:
Are we to assume that the Lord has included all young ones, without exception, into the "covenant of grace" established between His Father and Himself "before times past eternal" (Eph. 1:4-14; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:1-3)?

Newsflash: The covenant of grace is between God and man, with Christ as the Mediator.

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He [Christ] is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. (Hebrews 8:6)

"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." (Hebrews 10:16-17)

Camp:
Biblically this is left with great uncertainty for Scripture does not say.

Now isn't this ironic, Camp tries to decry people who believe that babies who die aren't burned for eternity because the Bible doesn't explicitly say as much, which he derives from the concepts of,

1. Inherited guilt (no biblical basis)
2. The covenant of grace being between the Father and Son (which by all scriptural accounts is between God and man, with Christ as Mediator)

All to support pagan, baby-cooking doctrine that isn't even hinted at in scripture.

Thus Camp attempts to fight an inference clearly rooted in the scriptural principles of how guilt is imputed (and strengthened by the declaration from David) with concepts that either find no place in, else are totally contradictory to scripture.

Before I could speak one word, reason, walk, say NO to my parents and assert my own will, etc., I was under the wrath of a holy God worthy only of being punished in an everlasting hell forever (John 3:36; Col. 1:21-22). Why? Because by nature I am worthy of His just and righteous judgment.

Camp misapplies John 3:36,

"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

ripping it from the chapter's context, which is contrasting wicked and sinful unbelievers with those who believe, not infants,

"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." (John 3:18-19)

I already cited Colossians 1:20 which states nothing even close to what Camp would have us believe,

And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works....

Which clearly indicates the exact opposite of being 'guilty just by nature.'


Scriptural Solidity vs Campy Calvinism

Camp:
We are all sinners, beloved, not because we commit acts of sin, but because our very nature is utterly sinful.

...

It is foundationally the sinfulness of who we are, not the just sinfulness of what we do, that sentences us to spend eternity in an everlasting hell under the wrathful presence of a holy God. And this at God's own elective volition (Cp, Eph. 1:4; Acts 13:48; Romans 9:22-23).

BA-LO-NEY. How can anyone honestly interpret,

"all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

as,

"It is foundationally the sinfulness of who we are...that sentences us to spend eternity in an everlasting hell"?

Camp clearly, unequivocally, undeniably, and indisputably contradicts the scripture here, establishing that he simply does not believe what the they say, rejecting the wisdom of God's word for gnostic gnonsense.


He tries to soften the blow to those who've lost young children with,

Whatever the individual circumstance may be, I do empathize with them emotionally and relationally.

Whatever that means. Such superficial 'empathy' polluted with the loathsome putrescence of delusive superstition that Camp preaches is but hollow yammering, and twisting the knife for those bereaved.

But beloved, such doubt-laden theidiocy as Camp spreads need not be taken seriously for a moment by anyone who's lost a infant child, had a miscarriage, or some such, for a deity who sadistically creates little ones for the express purpose of perishing for no crime other than being conceived bears not even a vague or infinitesimal resemblence to the God of scripture who abhors injustice and cruelty.


Bottom Line:

• Camp doth greatly err, not knowing the scriptures or the ways of the God who is neither unjust nor cruel, both of which infant damnation penultimately embody
  
  

• The scriptures indisputably establish that spiritual death comes by committing sin, not solely by having a sinful nature.
  
  

• In determining personal guilt, God does not account the sins of one's ancestors to the one being judged apart from that one being a willing partaker.
  
  

• Camp's doctrine is built all but totally upon equivocation, relying upon completely reinterpreting key terms, turning 'love' into 'favoritism,' 'justice' into 'arbitrariness,' 'sin' into 'pedigree,' 'transgression' into 'conception,' 'innocence' into 'impeccability,' 'sovereignty' into 'capriciousness,' and 'freedom' into 'inconsistency,' all of which are biblically irreconcilable.
  
  

• Ironically, he cites lack of a specific 'infants don't go to hell' verse as problematic while ignoring the sound scriptural principles upon which that belief is built, all while pushing varied and untenable silliness, such as 'inherited guilt,' which runs directly contrary to the word of God.
  
  

• He correctly maintains that unevangelized adults are all lost and without excuse in their sins, yet contradictorily raises hope for those who die in infancy based upon the same brand of appeal to mystery which he rejects for adults, despite the fact that he believes them both guilty on the exact same basis.
  
  

• Lack of imputed guilt does not make God less free or tie His hands by circumstances, since God Himself controls the circumstances. Asserting otherwise, Camp implicitly denies God's sovereignty.
  
  

• God plainly declares concerning personal judgment that His way of holding each man accountable for his own sins is fair, and that it's the way of men who hold children guilty of their fathers' iniquity that is unfair.
  
  

Home
Debate
Steve Camp<<

Articles
Debates
Humor
FAQs, etc.

Printer Friendly Version

Copyright © 2005-2008, InDeathorLife.org
The information on this page may not be reproduced or republished on another website, webpage or other printed media without express permission from the author of this site. Other material(s) referenced on this site are the property of their respective authors or copyright holders, and where applicable are used by permission.