Age of Accountability - scriptural foundation and a few questions?

[Standing Up]

You asked how these stipulations contradict sola fide.

According to the above,

1) Children under 12-13 yoa are saved, yet incapable of possessing faith in Christ. Sola fide is violated.

2) Children who have at least one Christian parent are saved, yet incapable of possessing faith in Christ. Sola fide is violated.

3) Children below an unspecified chronological age are saved, yet incapable of possessing faith in Christ. Sola fide is violated.

Either God is our savior, who has promised to act to save sinners by the means of grace, apart from qualifications of the one being saved, or we must indeed qualify somehow for the application of God's grace to save us through faith in Christ.

Or, sola fide is erroneous and God chooses to save some outside of faith in Christ. (Thereby violating scripture.)

Let's circle back to this. You're not universalist (all saved regardless of faith in Christ). What's the other term for requiring mental ascent to salvation (adult baptism)? Is that your view, say regards #3?

 

[PaladinValer]

Could you explain why you're not Roman Catholic?

I'm not the subject of this thread. Address my posts or don't reply.

Folks, if an argument is so weak that it must address persons and/or change the subject, then they aren't worthwhile and the position held needs to be seriously reevaluated.

 

[Nanopants]

That's no problem, but using the "historic faith" to mock and belittle other posters certainly isn't going to help you in that department.

 

[PaladinValer]

That's no problem, but using the "historic faith" to mock and belittle other posters certainly isn't going to help you in that department.

Positions are not posters. Internalizing ones beliefs as if they are part and parcel to their selves is a very unhealthy habit, one that is far too prevalent here on CF as well.

 

[Tangible]

Let's circle back to this. You're not universalist (all saved regardless of faith in Christ). What's the other term for requiring mental ascent to salvation (adult baptism)? Is that your view, say regards #3?

GCC addressed this question very well in the post below.

Saving faith is not the same as belief. Saving faith is the trust and dependence that characterizes a person who is in a state of grace, and that grace is given in baptism just as surely as it is given through the preached word.

Belief is important because it is the conscious expression of existential faith. Just as faith is trust in and dependence upon grace, so too belief is not merely knowledge and assent but also belief that clings to the promises of God- not just that Christ died, but that Christ died for me; not just that Christ is risen, but that Christ is risen for our salvation. It's what distinguishes the belief of demons from the faith of Christians.

But that sort of belief is only the conscious expression of a deeper reality that is only true when God makes it true: that he has handed over his inheritance to us. And he does that in Holy Baptism.

So we have faith (trust) in Christ, saving faith, given as a gift by God through his Word, both proclaimed and sacramental according to the promises of God revealed in Scripture. Since this faith is a gift given by God it requires no preconditions, no abilities of the recipient, no conscious mental assent.

This Christian faith is analogous to the inheritance, name, familial membership, love, protection, and provision received and promised when a child is born naturally into a family. This is the reason that Christ and the Apostles repeatedly refer to regeneration in Christ as new birth.

The mental assent you refer to above is therefore secondary, a product of saving faith given by God. It is an act of the believer done in faith, a work of faith as spoken of in 1 Thess 1:3. It is a characteristic of one who has been granted saving faith in Christ by God, yet it is not possible before and until God has acted to justify the individual, as seen in 1 Cor 12:3.

The Church (rightly or wrongly) has always required catechesis of new adult and adolescent converts before Baptism. There is a desire to see evidence of the gift of saving faith before one is accepted into the fellowship of believers. It is not a denial of the efficacy of Holy Baptism that produced this practice, but probably fear of infiltration and persecution. These people are initially granted faith in Christ by God through hearing the proclamation of the Gospel, yet when they are baptized, all the promises of God made to the baptized are no less valid for them.

There is also a desire on the part of the individual, once they are cognizant of their person, place and situation, to have an understanding of the rite they are submitting to. In other words, you can't really effectively evangelize by forcing people to be baptized, as has indeed been practiced in some historical instances.

But for infants and small children of believers and new converts, the promises of God given in Scripture tell us that God acts to grant saving faith in Holy Baptism. They are baptized, and then taught later as Christ commanded the Church to do. For them, the gift of faith in Christ is given first in Holy Baptism and then as their mind develops they are catechized at an age appropriate level. This is practiced because there are no age limits given in Scripture for those who may be baptized, and because the saving work of God requires no preconditions or participation from the one being saved.

 

[Lion King]

Legal immunity. Most countries have a legal age of adulthood that is fairly arbitrary and has nothing to do with moral standing in society or ability to distinguish right from wrong.

If you don't mind me asking, where are you getting your info? Are you just going with what you think happened or what's written in the Scriptures?

“And the Lord heard the sound of your words, and was angry, and took an oath, saying, 35 ‘Surely not one of these men of this evil generation shall see that good land of which I swore to give to your fathers, 36 except Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him and his children I am giving the land on which he walked, because he wholly followed the Lord.’ 37 The Lord was also angry with me for your sakes, saying, ‘Even you shall not go in there. 38 Joshua the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall go in there. Encourage him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.

39 ‘Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. 40 But as for you, turn and take your journey into the wilderness by the Way of the Red Sea.’ - Deuteronomy 1:34-40


According to Moses writings, the children of Israel were allowed into the promised land (a type of Paradise) solely because of their lack of knowledge between good and evil.

 

[Lion King]

They hadn't been part of the group revolt against God's promise as the previous generation had, and so they were not cut off from that promise as the previous generation had.

They weren't sinless or non-culpable for their own sins. It's that they were a fresh generation to whom God would give the Land, not turning against God's promises as their fathers had.

-CryptoLutheran

Scriptural source please?

Just wanna make sure you are not pulling stuff out of thin air.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Question
What makes an Israelite part of the "group"?

Question
Is there a provision in common law to provide immunity from adhering to contractual obligations for signatories, say minors, mental incompetency, etc.? IOW can a minor sign a Land Sale Agreement and be bound to it?

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with anything.

""Then all the congregation raised a loud cry, and the people wept that night. And all the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The whole congregation said to them, 'Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or would that we had died in this wilderness! Why is the LORD bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become a prey. Would it not be better for us to go back to Egypt?' And they said to one another, 'Let us choose a leader and go back to Egypt.'

Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before the assembly of the congregation of the people of Israel. And Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had spied out the land, tore their clothes and said to the congregation of the people of Israel, 'The land, which we passed through to spy it out, is an exceedingly good land. If the LORD delights in us, He will bring us into this land and give it to us, a land that flows with milk and honey. Only do not rebel against the LORD. And do not fear the people of the land, for they are bread for us. Their protection is removed from them, and the LORD is with us, do not fear them.' Then all the congregation said to stone them with stones. But the glory of the LORD appeared at the tent of meeting to all the people of Israel.

And the LORD said to Moses, 'How long will this people despise Me? And how long will they not believe in Me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them? I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.'" - Numbers 14:1-12

These are the people God did not permit to enter the Land. But their children He did permit to enter, after they wandered in the wilderness for year after year, until the younger generation had grown up and the older grown old. To that generation God gave the Land, as they had not grumbled and rebelled against God as their fathers had done.

I really don't understand why this is complicated. Nothing in the relevant texts has anything to say in regard to moral culpability, or some fictional "age of accountability".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Question
What makes an Israelite part of the "group"?

Question
Is there a provision in common law to provide immunity from adhering to contractual obligations for signatories, say minors, mental incompetency, etc.? IOW can a minor sign a Land Sale Agreement and be bound to it?

That's specifically not his argument.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I don't understand how... the Israelites had to cross through Jordan to reach it, then they had to go and possess it. Likewise, we are not instantaneously transformed the moment we hit water. And why else would John have baptized in the Jordan?

No one who believes in baptismal regeneration thinks that everything is done the moment we are baptized, in the sense that there is no sanctification we must undergo, or that we don't have to continually reaffirm our baptism as the central feature of our identity.

But to revisit your analogy (and its a good one, I agree), yes, the Israelites had to go in possess the land once they had crossed the Jordan. But lest we forgot, once they crossed over, they were in the land, truly and affirmatively and objectively, and they did so because of a divine miracle.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

That's no problem, but using the "historic faith" to mock and belittle other posters certainly isn't going to help you in that department.

The historic faith is bigger than Roman Catholicism. Even a moderate, reasonable Catholic will admit that the Orthodox Church is a true church, and that there were strands of Western Catholicism that were picked up by the Reformation churches rather than the official Tridentine church.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I don't recall anything in the New Testament mentioning on it, and thus far as I'm STILL chugging along in the OT[ up to 2 Kings 15 right now] I still see nothing about it for children or the mentally [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][ that the right word?]

I know we have a couple thousands years of church history showing its own solution to it by throwing water on people and saying their baptized, but I don't really like that idea. It doesn't make sense to me. It might be my baptist roots. lol

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

If you don't mind me asking, where are you getting your info? Are you just going with what you think happened or what's written in the Scriptures?

“And the Lord heard the sound of your words, and was angry, and took an oath, saying, 35 ‘Surely not one of these men of this evil generation shall see that good land of which I swore to give to your fathers, 36 except Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him and his children I am giving the land on which he walked, because he wholly followed the Lord.’ 37 The Lord was also angry with me for your sakes, saying, ‘Even you shall not go in there. 38 Joshua the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall go in there. Encourage him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.

39 ‘Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. 40 But as for you, turn and take your journey into the wilderness by the Way of the Red Sea.’ - Deuteronomy 1:34-40


According to Moses writings, the children of Israel were allowed into the promised land (a type of Paradise) solely because of their lack of knowledge between good and evil.

First of all, just because the Promised Land is a type of paradise doesn't mean we can apply every aspect of its inheritance to the workings of the covenant today.

Second, the verse you've quoted doesn't actually name an age, nor does it specify whether the fault which is being exempted is participation in the tribal revolt against entry, or whether the reason the adults are being barred is because they're part of the older evil generation who wanted to return to Egypt earlier; nor does it say that the children are exempt because they lack knowledge; it only indicates that, as young children (and they might be very young), they lack moral knowledge, and their exemption may be on other grounds.

In any case, you've completely undercut all parental disciple and want to let teenager gang members get away with murder.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In any case, you've completely undercut all parental disciple and want to let teenager gang members get away with murder.

I know it's been nearly 12 years since I was 20, but I'm fairly certain that at 19 I had a pretty solid grasp of right and wrong, the meaning of sin. In fact, I'm pretty sure those were concepts I had down pretty well when I was 7 or 8 years old. I would even argue that, as far back as my memory takes me, about 3 or 4 years old, I had a rudimentary grasp, or at the very least I was in the stage of learning, at a cognizant level, that my behavior had real ramifications in the world outside of me.

But I'm struggling to comprehend a view that would posit that a 19 year old adult is somehow not morally culpable for his or her actions, whereas a 20 or 21 year old adult somehow is.

Our psychological, moral development very obviously doesn't just magically poof into a mature state on our 20th birthday. I'd very much argue that this is a psychological process that begins in the cradle and continues until the coffin. And that most of us, barring major psychological or developmental issues, have a fairly firm grasp on the matter before adolescence.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PaladinValer]

I know it's been nearly 12 years since I was 20, but I'm fairly certain that at 19 I had a pretty solid grasp of right and wrong, the meaning of sin. In fact, I'm pretty sure those were concepts I had down pretty well when I was 7 or 8 years old. I would even argue that, as far back as my memory takes me, about 3 or 4 years old, I had a rudimentary grasp, or at the very least I was in the stage of learning, at a cognizant level, that my behavior had real ramifications in the world outside of me.

But I'm struggling to comprehend a view that would posit that a 19 year old adult is somehow not morally culpable for his or her actions, whereas a 20 or 21 year old adult somehow is.

Our psychological, moral development very obviously doesn't just magically poof into a mature state on our 20th birthday. I'd very much argue that this is a psychological process that begins in the cradle and continues until the coffin. And that most of us, barring major psychological or developmental issues, have a fairly firm grasp on the matter before adolescence.

-CryptoLutheran

Oh don't you know? It is magic! The thing is, you gotta make sure your deck has some good counter cards. I suggest a blue deck; they annoy the crap out of most opponents!

Then you can get away with as much sin as you want! Isn't his theology great? Just keep playing those counterspell blue cards and you'll win!

 

[Standing Up]

GCC addressed this question very well in the post below.

So we have faith (trust) in Christ, saving faith, given as a gift by God through his Word, both proclaimed and sacramental according to the promises of God revealed in Scripture. Since this faith is a gift given by God it requires no preconditions, no abilities of the recipient, no conscious mental assent.

That's universalism. It just happens.

This Christian faith is analogous to the inheritance, name, familial membership, love, protection, and provision received and promised when a child is born naturally into a family. This is the reason that Christ and the Apostles repeatedly refer to regeneration in Christ as new birth.

Believe it was Justin Martyr who contrasted your idea (no choice about your birth father/mother) and your choice about your spiritual Father (being born-again). But apparently his notion of faith is different from yours.

The mental assent you refer to above is therefore secondary, a product of saving faith given by God.

I would agree that to believe in the first place is given by God, but this is election, rather than universalism.

-snip-But for infants and small children of believers and new converts, the promises of God given in Scripture tell us that God acts to grant saving faith in Holy Baptism. They are baptized, and then taught later as Christ commanded the Church to do. For them, the gift of faith in Christ is given first in Holy Baptism and then as their mind develops they are catechized at an age appropriate level. This is practiced because there are no age limits given in Scripture for those who may be baptized, and because the saving work of God requires no preconditions or participation from the one being saved.

Well, I already made the comment about infants and hell. Besides you'd have to deal with Paul's 1 Cor scripture I cited. You've rejected this. Yet it seems to flow from your comments.

For my part, I wonder if this thinking isn't a backlash to the Roman salvation by works (at that time).

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Standing Up]

I know it's been nearly 12 years since I was 20,-snip-

Wasn't 20 the age at which one was eligible for war?

Recall Lot was sacrificing for his children. And the family at first Passover. Who believed?

 

[Standing Up]

The historic faith is bigger than Roman Catholicism. Even a moderate, reasonable Catholic will admit that the Orthodox Church is a true church, and that there were strands of Western Catholicism that were picked up by the Reformation churches rather than the official Tridentine church.

Why the Reformation again? It's somehow okay to be part of a Lutheran Church, but not, say, a Pentecostal or AoG or whatever other group confesses Christ? If it is, then the straw man he threw up is splashing on the windshield.

 

[Standing Up]

That's no problem, but using the "historic faith" to mock and belittle other posters certainly isn't going to help you in that department.

Irony sharpening irony doesn't work on led.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Wasn't 20 the age at which one was eligible for war?

Recall Lot was sacrificing for his children. And the family at first Passover. Who believed?

None of which, of course, has any bearing on one's righteousness before God or lack thereof. Under United States civil law my parents were responsible for me until I turned 18. But turning 18 didn't change anything as far as myself before God. I was culpable for my actions when I was 17, I was culpable for my actions at 18. On that Great and Terrible Day, I will stand account for everything I did, all will be brought to light. And my only hope will be Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran