Among them, we too all formerly
lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the
flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath,
even as the rest. That phrase is loaded with implications. Let us count some of the ways.
Number one, human beings, no matter what race they are, no
matter who their parents are, no matter their religious upbringing,
are born in sin and under the wrath of God. They are not born
good and righteous and then learn to do bad things and make bad
choices due to bad influences and bad examples. No, they are
bad by nature. By nature, children of wrath. Roaches give birth to little
roaches, and those little roaches have a nature of a roach, and
they do roach things. Rats give birth to little rats,
and they do rat things. Sinners give birth to little
sinners, and they do sinner things. Little children have the same
nature as adults, they're just smaller. David says we were brought
forth in iniquity. Psalm 51 5. Foolishness is bound
up in the heart of a child. Psalm 22 15, excuse me, Proverbs
22 15. Israel was called a rebel from birth. Isaiah 48 8. How did this Romans 3 condition,
there is none righteous, not even one, come to be the case
if all men were born innocent and good? How did it come to
pass that every single human being on the planet has gone
astray from the good and innocent position from which they supposedly
started? Come on. Secondly, all children need to
be born again if they are going to go to heaven. Being born is
not enough. They are born in sin, children
of wrath. That means you're under the wrath
of God. Unless and until they are born
again, they are lost. Therefore, do not act as though
your children are good and fine and on their way to heaven simply
because they're yours, or because you have them in church every
Sunday, or because you have family worship, or because you've catechized
them, or because you homeschooled, or because you initiated them
in a ritual you call baptism, even though you can't find infant
baptism in the Bible. or because you've led them through
some sinner's prayer, which you can't find in the Bible either.
Children are children of wrath until they are born again. There is no age of accountability. There is not a single text of
scripture to support it. It's a myth. Number three. There is only one
way in which it is appropriate to talk about mankind being the
children of God, and that is by virtue of being created by
him. So if that's the context, so
far so good. Acts 17, 29 is proof. But spiritually speaking, all
children are children of wrath, children of the devil. and less
than until they are born again and adopted then into God's family.
Fourthly, Paul included himself in this description. Paul was
a child of wrath by nature, even as the rest. Think about that. Paul was born a Jew. He was part of God's covenant
people. He was circumcised the eighth day of the tribe of Benjamin,
a Hebrew of Hebrews. As to the law, a Pharisee, that
is very serious about external conformity to the law. No one
would have accused him of being a covenant breaker. As to the
righteousness which was found in the law, he says that he was
blameless. That is, he kept the external requirements very stringently. But Paul here tells us that in
spite of all those credentials, he was a child of wrath even
as the rest. He does not call himself a covenant
child. That term is never used in scripture.
He calls himself a child of wrath. Being circumcised on day eight
did not change his status. being born again changed his
status. He did not say or imply that
he was somehow safe in the covenant. He was a child of wrath. That's not safe. I used to care
nothing about unity. I care about it now. I don't
pick fights unless I feel I have to. And I don't try to do it
as a picking of a fight. But I don't try to bring up things
that are bring to the fore my differences with other people
unless I feel I have to. And I feel I have to here. I'm
on this text. The implications are profound.
To omit it here, to me, is like an elephant standing in the living
room that I simply will not acknowledge. So I have several Presbyterian
friends whom I love. I went to a Presbyterian seminary
and I attended a Presbyterian church for a time by there. Now,
not all Presbyterians are the same. This happened to be Presbyterian
Church of America, primarily. I witnessed a number of infant
baptisms, and I heard the things that the minister said about
the baby after he or she was baptized, quote unquote. I heard
him call the child a child of the covenant, a child of God,
an heir of God's promises, and other glorious, feel-good descriptions. And there were many smiles on
the faces of people and tears in the congregation. It was an
emotionally charged atmosphere. I never once heard the minister
say of the child or remotely imply that the child was a child
of wrath, even as the rest. In fact, I never heard any kind
of talk like that at all. Instead, there was presumptive
regeneration, presumed saved until proven otherwise. And folks,
I can hardly think of a better way to deceive parents about
the spiritual status of their child, though the sinner's prayer
might come close. I ask you, if you are a child
of wrath, are you safe in the covenant? Is the wrath of God
a safe space for you? Should children of wrath be baptized? Should they be given communion,
which they are now in a great number of Presbyterian churches?
Should children of wrath be considered members of churches? Remember that in the Presbyterian
view of things, circumcision is the Old Testament counterpart
to New Testament baptism. They baptize babies because the
Jews circumcised baby boys. And I don't believe that we are
to look to circumcision to help us determine the practice of
infant baptism, or baptism, excuse me. But even if that was the
case, don't you think that you ought to listen to the Apostle
Paul give the definitive verdict on the status of children, whether
circumcised or not, whether covenant children or not? Is he not a
better interpreter of covenant theology than any reformed theologian
you can think of? Paul's verdict is that he and
the Jews and you and me were all dead in sin, all children
of wrath, even as the rest. There was no difference in status. No difference in safety between
the covenant children, quote unquote, of Israel and the godless
Gentiles. No difference. It is very odd to me, contradictory
and self-refuting, to subscribe to reform theology, to proclaim
one's belief in predestination and election. to proclaim the
imputation of Adam's sin to all human beings, meaning all infants,
to proclaim that everyone needs a savior in Jesus, and to proclaim
that you cannot lose your salvation once you've been saved, and then
to turn around and say that all infants who die automatically
go to heaven because they're innocent. They can't both be
true. You can't be born in sin and
actually have the Adam sin imputed to you and be innocent. So that
leaves you with one other option, to say that all infants have
the imputed righteousness of Jesus. And though they are not
innocent of themselves, they somehow receive the imputed righteousness
of Christ. Though presumably not by faith. but on the basis of what scripture
exactly would one establish that. And what shall we say then that
has happened to these vast millions, billions of saved infants who
came into this world saved, and then who don't die in infancy,
and they continue to live, and they grow up to become wretched
toddlers, wretched teenagers, and wretched adults. who walk
according to the course of this world, according to the prince
of the power of the air, in the lusts of the flesh, indulging
them. What happened? If they started
out saved, what happened? Did they all lose their salvation?
Or are we going to succumb to antinomianism after all? Everybody's
saved. Nobody lives like it. Who cares? If they start out saying, did
they lose their salvation? I thought that couldn't happen
because of the perseverance of the saints. What do we make of people like
Paul? Are we to believe that he was born in sin, a child of
wrath as he says he is, somehow received the righteousness of
Christ into his account in infancy, then lost it, became a terrible
persecutor of the church, hating Christ and his church, only to
be born again, again, on the Damascus Road? Is that the case also for you
and me and every other true Christian? We were saved at the beginning,
we lost it somewhere after that, and then we got saved again?
On the basis of what? This is nonsense, folks. We're
letting our emotions dictate our theology, and when we do
that, it's like a canker eating away at the foundation. It just
keeps eating away at the things and weakens your view all throughout
on all kinds of things. If you allow this kind of sloppy
and self-contradictory treatment of the scriptures in this area,
you will allow it elsewhere as well. Is it any wonder that hardly
anyone believes in original sin anymore? R.C. Sproul himself had a sermon or
a paper that he wrote, The Pelagian Captivity of the Church, which
was harking back to Luther's The Babylonian Captivity of the
Church, a book that he wrote in his day. Pelagian captivity. What does it mean to be a Pelagian?
It means you don't believe in original sin. You believe that
you're born innocent. Then you just grow up and learn
to be bad because of bad examples around you. Where did all the
bad examples come from? If everybody was born innocent
and pure and righteous, how did these bad people come to learn
to be bad? It is impossible to sustain a firm
belief in original sin when you're trying so hard to ensure that
all infants go to heaven. And this is not a popular position.
Believe me, I know. This is not gonna win me any
friends, I'm sure. But I just, visions two, three, it's right
there. How can we escape this? All Christian
parents want their children to be saved. I want mine to be saved.
I understand that. I'm not speaking as a foreigner
to parental experience. But we have to cease with this
unbiblical nonsense based on emotions and wishful thinking.
I refuse to lie to my children so I can feel better. I tell
my children, and I hope gently, that they're lost and they're
headed for hell, until it appears that they have sought the Lord
and actually found Him, demonstrated by repentance from sin and faith
in Christ. Some would probably feel that
I'm guilty of child abuse by that. Look at the scriptures. What is Paul saying here in Ephesians
2, 3? Can you honestly read anything different out of that? Please
don't lie to your children. You will give an account for
their souls. Jesus said, it is inevitable
that stumbling blocks come, but woe to that man or woman through
whom they come. Call out to God on behalf of
your children, warn them, teach them, appeal to them, and leave
the salvation of their souls in the hands of God where it
has always been anyway. Let's pray.