Age of Accountability - scriptural foundation and a few questions?

[Wordkeeper]

Psalm 103:8The LORD is compassionate and merciful, slow to get angry and filled with unfailing love.

James 3:17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial[bless and do not curse]and sincere.

People with head wounds are observed to have diminished moral judgment, sometimes no moral judgment. The part of the brain that is responsible for making competent judgment calls isn't developed fully until majority, considered with a margin of error to be twenty.

Contracts signed by minors, whether to sell a cow for a bag of magic beans or a house for a thousand dollars are null and void, courts ruling that minors have not developed the competence required to under stand the full implication of their decisions.

Our courts with a strict sense of justice have the ability to acknowledge mental incompetency in minors and allow immunity, but God who made us, who is above all merciful and slow to anger comes down on children like a ton of bricks?

Numbers 14:10But all the congregation said to stone them with stones. Then the glory of the LORD appeared in the tent of meeting to all the sons of Israel.

The entire assembly wanted to stone Joshua and Caleb, showing all of Israel rebelled against God. So the rebuttal that only the older generation rebelled stands revealed as false.

Someone said the very young children were forgiven. This contradicts the opposing view of children being responsible for all sin. It seems to be an attempt to wiggle out by moving the goal post, from saying no children are exempt to saying very young children are exempt. Which is it? Keep in view that the text says that those with no knowledge of good and evil were exempt.

A view of accountability of adults works against the doctrine of original sin, weakening this view, explaining the resistance if it's adherents, a view not held by Judaism or the Eastern Church. Original sin was formulated because the western church was contaminated by Greek dualism, the view that the spirit is good and matter is bad. Contradicting God, who saw everything He made and said it was good.

Dr George Eldon Ladd in his book on how Greek Philosophy has contaminated the Western Church explains the debilitating effect it had on doctrinal development.

 

[Wordkeeper]

It was Augustine who backed the dualism , which appealed to his Manichaen sensibilities, with Scripture, with even more disastrous results:

Quote
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was a great thinker and church leader. As a young man he had left his Christian background and become a Manichaean, a follower of an anti-Christian dualistic religion; eventually he came back to the Christian faith. But he was not a great linguist. He could speak and understand well only his native Latin, not Greek. And so for his understanding of the Bible he had to rely on translations into Latin.

Doug Chaplin has recently explained how in Romans 5:12

Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.

(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:

the Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that&#8221, and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”.

So, according to Augustine all sinned “in Adam”, which he understood as meaning that because Adam sinned every other human being, each of his descendants, is counted as a sinner. This is his doctrine of “original sin”, that every human is born a sinner and deserves death because of it. He may have taken up this idea because it agreed with his former Manichaean theology. This teaching is fundamental to most Protestant as well as Roman Catholic teaching today. For example, it underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.

Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle Wisdom

 

[Wordkeeper]

double post...

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

That's universalism. It just happens.

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.

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

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.

Good Lord, it's not universalism.

 

[PaladinValer]

Good Lord, it's not universalism.

What I find amazing is that anyone would call Lutheran soteriology "Universalist" when Lutheranism is founded on Monergism.

 

[Melethiel]

That's universalism. It just happens.



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.



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




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.

It's not universalism, because nowhere did he state that everyone is saved. It is the idea of an age of accountability that leans toward universalism, not the idea of election through grace without any assent on the side of the one being saved.

 

[Standing Up]

It's not universalism, because nowhere did he state that everyone is saved. It is the idea of an age of accountability that leans toward universalism, not the idea of election through grace without any assent on the side of the one being saved.

The word universalism must have blinded folks to that "same" comment of mine. Note my 3rd paragraph you quoted. Tough for some to consider what others are actually saying.

 

[Standing Up]

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

So, who believed?

 

[Standing Up]

It was Augustine who backed the dualism , which appealed to his Manichaen sensibilities, with Scripture, with even more disastrous results:

Quote
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was a great thinker and church leader. As a young man he had left his Christian background and become a Manichaean, a follower of an anti-Christian dualistic religion; eventually he came back to the Christian faith. But he was not a great linguist. He could speak and understand well only his native Latin, not Greek. And so for his understanding of the Bible he had to rely on translations into Latin.

Doug Chaplin has recently explained how in Romans 5:12

Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.

(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:

the Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that”), and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”.

So, according to Augustine all sinned “in Adam”, which he understood as meaning that because Adam sinned every other human being, each of his descendants, is counted as a sinner. This is his doctrine of “original sin”, that every human is born a sinner and deserves death because of it. He may have taken up this idea because it agreed with his former Manichaean theology. This teaching is fundamental to most Protestant as well as Roman Catholic teaching today. For example, it underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.

Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle Wisdom

Believe EO have a completely different understanding of "original sin" than the West (Luther through Rome).

 

[ViaCrucis]

So, who believed?

If you want to try and present the story of the younger generation entering the Land and apply it, theologically, to salvation then this is how it has to be done:

The older generation, though having been given the promise of God to enter the Land, rejected it, revolted; and so instead God turned to the younger generation, to a generation that would receive His promises and keep them.

So if we are going to turn this into a matter of believe/faith and God's promises, and direct them as a type of salvation in Christ, then the younger generation believed in God's promises and inherited the Land.

That's the only way it's going to make sense soteriologically.

But I don't know that the text says enough to make that kind of assertion, and thus far I have not made that assertion.

Rather I have argued that there is simply no reason to yank this episode and text into this conversation at all. It doesn't say anything about an "age of accountability", that concept is simply not there to be found.

The above hypothetical usage is just that, and unless it seems textually worth it to argue such a thing, I don't intend to. And instead focus as I have been.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Wordkeeper]

The condition for entering the promised Land was surrendering loyalty to even your own life and taking on the giants.


God's judgment fell on Israel when she disbelieved, even after she was shown proof of His reliability.


Psalm 78:17Even after witnessing all of these miracles, they still chose to sin against God, to act against the will of the Most High in the desert!18They tested God in their stubborn hearts by demanding whatever food they happened to be craving. 19Then they challenged God: “Can God fill a table with food in the middle of the desert?

A similar condition faced by Christ with loyalty:

Matthew 4:4Jesus answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"

The children were exempted, since they had no knowledge of good and evil. Till they reached a state of knowledge of good and evil, God found them fit for entry into the Promised Land

As did Christ:

Matthew 19:14But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The condition for entering the promised Land was surrendering loyalty to even your own life and taking on the giants.

<snip>

The children were exempted, since they had no knowledge of good and evil. Till they reached a state of knowledge of good and evil, God found them fit for entry into the Promised Land.

That doesn't seem to quite make sense to me.

Why would God require one generation to "prove" themselves in this way, and then simply allow the younger generation to enter without the same level of testing?

They still had to take the land, but the circumstances were vastly different for them, imo.

Of course, God can do whatever He wants to do. But if you are applying this to His rules for salvation, it seems to get a little dicey?

 

[Nanopants]

That doesn't seem to quite make sense to me.

Why would God require one generation to "prove" themselves in this way, and then simply allow the younger generation to enter without the same level of testing?

They still had to take the land, but the circumstances were vastly different for them, imo.

Of course, God can do whatever He wants to do. But if you are applying this to His rules for salvation, it seems to get a little dicey?

I think it was mentioned earlier that faith here is being interpreted within a patron/client context as akin to loyalty (it is at least comparable to loyalty using a few passages). That would render the overtaking of the promised land as being very similar to and perhaps analogous to Christian life and salvation.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think it was mentioned earlier that faith here is being interpreted within a patron/client context as akin to loyalty (it is at least comparable to loyalty using a few passages). That would render the overtaking of the promised land as being very similar to and perhaps analogous to Christian life and salvation.

I may have forgotten that part of the patron/client context. I was remembering the analogy drawn to baptism in that case.

But even so ... my point is really that there was a great difference (seemingly) between what God asked of the one generation, and what He asked of the other.

If it's going to be used to decide how salvation works, wouldn't the requirements in either case necessarily be more similar? At least it would make more sense to me in that case. With such a disparity between what God requires of one group and what He required of another ... as I said, He can do what He wants. But it doesn't look like a model for salvation in that case.

 

[Nanopants]

I may have forgotten that part of the patron/client context. I was remembering the analogy drawn to baptism in that case.

But even so ... my point is really that there was a great difference (seemingly) between what God asked of the one generation, and what He asked of the other.

If it's going to be used to decide how salvation works, wouldn't the requirements in either case necessarily be more similar? At least it would make more sense to me in that case. With such a disparity between what God requires of one group and what He required of another ... as I said, He can do what He wants. But it doesn't look like a model for salvation in that case.

One does have to wonder why John used the Jordan river for his baptisms though (remember that's where Christ was baptized) and what the significance is. Following the accounts provided in the Gospels, we see that He ordained many apostles, and sent them out two by two and apparently to many cities, and armed as it were, so the picture I get is really not very different from the overtaking of the promised land (bear in mind that Joshua is considered to be a type of Christ). The major difference in this case would be that words were used as opposed to violence.

That could provide some context on at least a few of the statements made in the Gospels related to salvation, though perhaps it is difficult to make it fit within a modern Christian paradigm in any way that makes much sense, and then maybe as the thread progresses we can draw from both contexts to find common ground.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I may have forgotten that part of the patron/client context. I was remembering the analogy drawn to baptism in that case.

But even so ... my point is really that there was a great difference (seemingly) between what God asked of the one generation, and what He asked of the other.

If it's going to be used to decide how salvation works, wouldn't the requirements in either case necessarily be more similar? At least it would make more sense to me in that case. With such a disparity between what God requires of one group and what He required of another ... as I said, He can do what He wants. But it doesn't look like a model for salvation in that case.

You are right. It has never cropped up in my study before, but a couple hours ago, I saw that even though God exempted the children, He still made them wander in the wilderness for forty years , for the sins of the elders, and they still had to fight to get into the Land, though it seems God was going to make it a done deal, unlike the first generation. Or was it different?


Numbers 14:32'But as for you, your corpses will fall in this wilderness. 33Your sons shall be shepherds for forty years in the wilderness, and they will suffer for your unfaithfulness, until your corpses lie in the wilderness. 34According to the number of days which you spied out the land, forty days, for every day you shall bear your guilt a year, even forty years, and you will know My opposition.

Pretty awkward and I tried to fudge the issue, but you caught it out! Good on yer!

However, it argues against the stand that the children were exempted because they were not part of the rebellious group.

1.They still suffered, but for the elders sins, not for their own.
2.It was not judgment, either : (a)because they did not rebel or (b)did rebel, but since they lacked knowledge of good and evil, the competence to decide, it made them not responsible for their actions, the latter being more likely. The punishment was punishment for the elders.

The judgment on Israel could have been a corporate judgment. Just as even though Israel was not judged into extinction like Sodom and Gomorrah, the faithful remnant still suffered along with the nation through defeat , foreign occupation or exile. To compensate, the remnant and their children, like Daniel and Esther, seemed to have God's protection and provision.

In this particular incident, the disloyal spies immediately died of plague, those who discouraged , murmured never entered the Promised Land. As it became an issue of honor and pride in His reliability, God even ensured that those under twenty would have an easier entry into the Land. The news spread during the wandering period and the enemies were demoralized, including Gibeon, and Jericho, the city Rahab lived in.

You see this fine tuning in several places, making one wonder if God elects people by compensation, by blessing, to influence their decision to seek Him. Until you realise that the circumstances He uses are themselves tests:

James 1:9But the brother of humble circumstances is to glory in his high position.

Read like a commentary, NLT is genius!

James 1: 9Believers who are poor have something to boast about, for God has honored them.

 

[hedrick]

Using the wilderness story to answer this question seems dubious. The children would have had no part in the people's decisions on entry into the land. Thus it made no sense to blame them. That has little to do with the question of whether they can or cannot sin in their own actions.

 

[hedrick]

teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine&#8217;s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.

Nope. Calvin did not share Augustine's error on Rom 5:12.

His understanding was that sin is primarily a state of alienation from God, not an action. The reason everyone sins is because everyone inherits the results of Adam's sin, which is a nature that is corrupted. "... the natural depravity which we bring from our mother&#8217;s womb, though it brings not forth immediately its own fruits, is yet sin before God, and deserves his vengeance: and this is that sin which they call original."

Calvin explicitly rejects the concept that we are personally guilty of Adam's sin. We are condemned for our own sinful nature, which however we inherit from Adam.

I'm not sure Paul had that in mind either, but Calvin does not share Augustine's exegetical error.

Here's the Latin Calvin uses for Rom 5:12: "Quamobrem sicut per unum hominem peccatum in mundum introiit, et per peccatum mors; atque ita in omnes homines mors pervagata est, quandoquidem omnes peccaverunt:" It would be very unusual for Calvin to make this kind of exegetical mistake. One should check sources very carefully before believing such a claim. That's not to say that I always agree with him, but you won't find him uncritically accepting someone else's opinion, and he did use the original languages as his basic text.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Nope. Calvin did not share Augustine's error on Rom 5:12.

The article does not say the error was shared. It was the doctrine.

The question that philosophers inevitably posed to Christians: &#8220;How could sin have entered the world, if God is good? is the reason why the doctrine was formulated.

There is no direct view outlined in Scripture so the early church formed it based on their cultural situation, which was Greek .

Greek dualism views matter as evil and spirit as good. Life is therefore a struggle to free the spirit from the bondage of the body and rise to heaven without the contaminating body holding one back.

Hebrew theology is not dualistic, Judaism treating all of creation as good. Sin was the wrong use of the physical appetites required for procreation and continuation of the species. An action could be both right or wrong depending on the situation. Sex was holy in marriage, a crime in rape or out of wedlock.

Greek education was the foundational basis for all scholarly pursuits, not only in the ANE, but also in the West even until the early 20th century. You weren't considered educated till you had a classical education, meaning knowledge of Latin and Greek and a command of the Classics, Homer, Plato, Socrates, et al.

Luther, Calvin, all passed through the system, and it influenced their thinking. I posted material from their works in the TWeb forum, but it all went down.


Quote
The Original View of Original Sin

Augustine&#8217;s outlook on sex was distorted by ideas from the world outside the Bible.

Augustine&#8217;s writings on the subject of original sin are often seen as a reaction to his own perceived sexual excesses as a young man. In reality, the basis of his ideas is much more profound than could have been provided by his personal conduct. The origins of his views are clearly rooted in the world of philosophy.

Augustine was challenged by the question that philosophers inevitably posed to Christians: &#8220;How could sin have entered the world, if God is good?&#8221; Augustine sought to answer this challenge and in so doing adopted many of the philosophers&#8217; ideas.

The result, as evidenced by his writings, was that Augustine reinterpreted the Bible in light of philosophy. With respect to original sin, he understood the account of Adam and Eve as a description of humanity&#8217;s fall from grace. They sinned and were punished by God, and thus all subsequent humanity, being at that time biologically present within Adam, was party to the sin. The idea of innate sin and guilt became a widespread doctrine, as is shown by the following words from a popular American schoolbook used in the 17th and 18th centuries: &#8220;In Adam&#8217;s fall, we sinned all.&#8221;

But Augustine did not devise the concept of original sin. It was his use of specific New Testament scriptures to justify the doctrine that was new. The concept itself had been shaped from the late second century onward by certain church fathers, including Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian. Irenaeus did not use the Scriptures at all for his definition; Origen reinterpreted the Genesis account of Adam and Eve in terms of a Platonic allegory and saw sin deriving solely from free will; and Tertullian&#8217;s version was borrowed from Stoic philosophy.

Though Augustine was convinced by the arguments of his earlier patristic peers, he made use of the apostle Paul&#8217;s letters, especially the one to the Romans, to develop his own ideas on original sin and guilt. Today, however, it is accepted that Augustine, who had never mastered the Greek language, misread Paul in at least one instance by using an inadequate Latin translation of the Greek original.

In Romans 5, Paul addresses the matter of sin. In verse 12 he states, &#8220;Therefore . . . sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned&#8221; (NRSV). Later in the chapter, Paul juxtaposes the sin of Adam with the righteousness of Christ: &#8220;Just as by the one man&#8217;s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man&#8217;s obedience the many will be made righteous&#8221; (Romans 5:19). In contrast to his contemporary theologians, Augustine drew from his reading of these scriptures that sin was passed biologically from Adam to all his descendants through the sexual act itself, thus equating sexual desire with sin. But why should he have reached this interpretation when marital sexual relations in Jewish society at the time of Christ and Paul were considered honorable and good?

The Original View of Original Sin

 

[Tangible]

The truly incredible thing about using Deut 1:39 to justify a doctrine of AoA is that it takes a phrase from the text that clearly and obviously is a time reference, a time marker, and gives it soteriological significance.

And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Having no knowledge of good or evil is not a qualification or characteristic of the children indicating blamelessness or lack of culpability for their innate sinful nature inherited in their flesh from Adam.

"Who today have no knowledge of good or evil" merely identifies an age group that will be allowed to enter. The text could just as well have used the phrase "who today continue to wet their beds," "who today still have all their deciduous teeth," or "who today go barefoot."