Age of Accountability - scriptural foundation and a few questions?

[Wordkeeper]

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.

I did a little check on how God views sin, and so far, they were disloyal acts, doing something against God's interests, plans.

Apparently He's not closed to a bit of negotiation, especially when He commands a hard task. Abraham's wiggles and deviations didn't evoke any unfavorable response, it was a learning process for him, and when God consistently rescued him from harm, he was ready when God tested his loyalty with a difficult task.

When the sovereign conqueror approaches, demanding submission, fealty, revenue, army recruits, the vassal can ask for terms of peace. Instead of conscripts, he will offer more taxes. Instead of submission and occupation, he will join the conquering forces. Everything is open. What's not up for grabs is disloyal action.

All these weighty matters require a certain amount of competence. If the children were not involved in the decision to hang back because of their minor status, being not competent to have a voting right, they would not be involved in the judgment too. You can't have it all ways.

A decision to follow God is a weighty matter too. God does not call without first establishing a relation, revealing His ability, reliability and goals, and when He asks for commitment, it's not blind faith: He has already established a track record.

 

[Wordkeeper]

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."

O, brother!

 

[Tangible]

Really? Guilt by association with St. Augustine? That's the best you can do?

The doctrine of Original Sin confessed and taught by Augustine versus the Reformers do share similarities, but they are not the same.

Quibbling over the interpretation of one verse or passage is a waste of time. Denial of the scriptural doctrine of Original Sin requires one to reject or deny many separate verses and passages of scripture.

 

[Tangible]

O, brother!

Prove me wrong.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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.

Didn't you know the people wandering in the wilderness were ruled by a democratic process that included children's votes and required a unanimous tribal majority?

 

[Wordkeeper]

Prove me wrong.

I thought I would be alone in hoiding this view. Apparently, others who are Berean like and not afraid of rocking the boat also question the view of the mainline churches, the view of those who occupy the seat of Moses:

Quote
The [FONT=&quot]Riches[/FONT] OF GRACE
[FONT=&quot]“hath appeared to all men.” Titus 2:11[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Robert W. Reed[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]December 2001[/FONT]​

The Age of Accountability​

“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

I Corinthians 13:11​

The Bible does give us an age in which one is considered accountable for what one does. God makes a difference between childhood and adulthood, and upon reaching this age of accountability (adulthood) most people are ready to settle down and put away childish things. Even though there is a gradual development of accountability from infancy to maturity in which we begin to understand what sin is and to know good and evil, God still gives us an actual age.
Can parents be comforted in the death of a little one in knowing where they are or will they ever see the child again? The answer is yes. The age of accountability is probably older than you think. Consider the millions of children who have died from natural causes, starvation, war, abortion, etc. None of these children shall perish, for they are covered by God’s mercy and grace.

Childhood verses Adulthood

There is an age when God considers children no longer children, I Corinthians 14:20 “Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.” The Bible speaks of Moses “coming to years” in Hebrews 11:24 and Proverbs 22:6 speaks of “training up a child,” and when he is “old” (grown) he will not depart from it. God makes a distinct difference between children and adults. It is true that some mature quicker than others. We see this in the Scriptures and also in our own circle. It even seems reasonable that the age of accountability varies from individual to individual and from society to society, but the Scriptures teach that God does recognize an actual age.

The Actual Age

I believe the age of accountability, according to the Scriptures is twenty years old. Some believe it is thirteen years old from a faulty reading of Luke 2:42. The problem is that the Scriptures do not recognize such a date.
Bar-mitzvah, meaning “son of the covenant,” is celebrated by the Jews today, but this is solely based on religious traditions.
Now, let us examine the Scriptures that point to the age of accountability being twenty years old.
First, the Lord forbade Israel from entering the promised land because of their rebellion. They wandered in the wilderness for forty years until every adult Israelite was dead except for Joshua and Caleb. According to Deuteronomy 1:39, their little ones, or children, which had no knowledge between good and evil, did enter into the land. They were not held accountable for sin as the adults were even though they may have murmured as their parents. In Numbers 14:29, all under twenty years of age went in to possess the land and all twenty years old and above were accountable. Again, those nineteen years and under were considered as not knowing between good and evil. In other words, they had not reached maturity. There is a difference between knowing right and wrong and good and evil.
Second, according to Numbers 1:3, Israelites were considered accountable for military service at age twenty and not before, “From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.” By this age, they could be relied upon to assume responsibility in military duty.
Third, in Numbers 4:1-3, 23, the Levites at age thirty began their work in the tabernacle. In Numbers 8:24, the age twenty-five is given. Probably at this age they were guided by the older experienced Levites. But in David’s time they began training and service at the age of twenty (I Chronicles 23:24-27). This is also true after the Babylonian captivity according to Ezra 3:8. My point is, the age twenty shows up again in the life of the Levites who ministered to Israel, God’s people. The Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist’s ministry began at the age of thirty.
Fourth, according to Exodus 30:12-16, when the tribes were polled, only those twenty years old and up were to pay a tax or ransom for his soul. They paid a half-shekel tax in acknowledgement of their responsibilities as Israelites. It appears that Christ supported this tax also (Matthew 17:24).
By the age of twenty young people should be mature and able to marry and establish a home apart from their parents.

Infant Salvation and the Death of a Child

When the son of King David died, David said in II Samuel 12:23, “But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” David knew he was saved and going to heaven one day and knew that his son was there. This gave David great comfort. The Lord Jesus said in Matthew 18:14, “ Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones (children) should perish,” And in Matthew 19:14, “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven” in reference to children . The Bible speaks of those who cannot discern between the right hand and the left hand. According to Isaiah 7:16, a child knows not to “refuse the evil and choose the good”. In Isaiah 10:19, showing that youth had limitation, that is, a child is limited in his understanding of large quantities. Also, Job said, that if he had died in infancy he would be at rest (not hell).
Infants are innocent, without the knowledge of good and evil. They are covered by the blood of Christ if they die before becoming morally accountable. God is just, loving and merciful. Infants are not in unbelief, they cannot repent nor truly follow the Lord. This is why we do not baptize babies. We dedicate them to the Lord’s protection and care, but we do not baptize them. Infants cannot be judged according to their works (Revelation 20:11-12). There is no statement in the Scriptures that says infants are lost. Even though, according to Psalm 51:5, a baby is born in sin and has a sinful nature, they are not held accountable until they are able to choose. If Adam’s sin can be put to their account, so can Christ’s death be put to the child’s account (Romans 5:12-14, 17-19).
We should never hinder a child from coming to the Lord. At the same time, do not push them to be saved when they are not ready and truly able to understand the gospel. Parents are responsible for their children and should keep them exposed to the truth throughout their life while praying for them.
The purpose of this article is not to debate a controversial issue but to show the awesome responsibility God has given to parents. In our society children are turned loose and set free long before they should be. We must keep them under our rule and protection until they become mature enough to make their own decisions and properly walk with the Lord. I pray this has been of some help to the reader.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Acts 16:31​

[FONT=&quot]Victory[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Baptist Church[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Pastor Robert W. Reed[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]14473 Bellingrath Road[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]P.O. Box[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 257[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Coden, Alabama 36523[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot](251) 873-4422

http://biblicaltruth.info/Articles/Age%20of%20Accountability.htm
[/FONT]​

 

[hedrick]

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

I agree with Tangible: There are similarities, but the doctrine is not the same. I think saying that we are all guilty of Adam's sin is different from saying that we all have a corrupted nature, which will result in sinful actions.

If Calvin had Augustine's view of sex, I'd want to see documentation. His doctrine of original sin doesn't require it.

I also agree with Tangible that Duet 1:39 isn't teaching an age of accountability, but defining a group of people.

Didn't you know the people wandering in the wilderness were ruled by a democratic process that included children's votes and required a unanimous tribal majority?

I'm not quite sure what this means. But I note that according to Num 14:1 it was "all of the congregation" except Moses and Aaron that didn't want to occupy the land. So they had a unanimous tribal majority. I doubt, however that children were included (or women, for that matter).

Deut 34 says: "When the LORD heard your words, he was wrathful and swore: 35[bless and do not curse]“Not one of these—not one of this evil generation—shall see the good land that I swore to give to your ancestors, 36[bless and do not curse]except Caleb son of Jephunneh." The Lord was punishing the entire generation who rejected him. The children weren't participants in the rejection.

I do think it makes sense to say that children have a lesser degree of responsibility for what they do. I just don't think this passage is where to look. But I don't see any evidence in Scripture, or in our own experience, of a specific age when someone becomes responsible. For practical purposes we have to set limits for some purposes, as we do for driving, for citizenship, for drinking, etc. Like us, Israel seems to have used varying ages. And those ages are generally for legal or ceremonials purposes, which may not be related to the theological question of responsibility for sin.

 

[Wordkeeper]

The Greek Versus the Hebrew View of Man
George Eldon Ladd

Quote
The foundations of the Greek view go back to the theology of the Orphic sect, which came to light in Greece in the sixth century B.C., and spread throughout the Greek world and into southern Italy, profoundly influencing Plato and later Greek thought. This theology is embodied in the ancient myth of Zagreus (Dionysus), begotten by Zeus of Demeter. Zagreus fell under the power of the Titans, wicked enemies of Zeus. In his effort to escape them, Zagreus changed himself into a bull; but the Titans captured him, tore him to pieces, and devoured him. However, Zeus blasted the Titans by a flash of lightning, and from their ashes arose the human race. Mankind thus possesses two elements: a divine element from Zagreus and a wicked element from the Titans. This mythology expresses the Orphic theology of the dualism of body and soul. Man must free himself from the Titanic elements and, purified, return to the gods, a fragment of whom is living in him. Expressed in other words, "man's duty is to free himself from the chains of the body in which the soul lies fast bound like the prisoner in his cell."16 This freedom is not easily achieved. Usually the soul at death flutters free in the air, only to enter into a new body. It may pass through a series of deaths and reincarnations. Finally, by the sacred rites of the cult and by a life of ascetic purity, man may escape the wheel of birth and become divine.17

The Greek Versus the Hebrew View of Man

===============
Quote
The Old Testament view of God, man, and the world is very different from Greek dualism. Fundamental to Hebrew thought is the belief that God is the creator, that the world is God's creation and is therefore in itself good. The Greek idea that the material world is the sphere of evil and a burden or a hindrance to the soul is alien to the Old Testament.

When God created the world, he saw that it was good (Gen. 1:31). The world was created for God's glory (Ps. 19:1); the ultimate goal and destiny of creation is to glorify and praise its creator (Ps. 98:7-9). The Hebrews had no concept of nature; to them the world was the scene of God's constant activity. Thunder was the voice of God (Ps. 29:3, 5); pestilence is the heavy hand of the Lord (I Sam. 5:6); human life is the breath of God inbreathed in man's face (Gen. 2:7; Ps. 104:29).

The Greek Versus the Hebrew View of Man

=====================

The Influence Of Greek Philosophy On The Development Of Christian Theology
by J. W. Jepson, D.Min.

Quote
ugustine (A.D. 354 - 430) spent several years of his earlier life in Manichaeism. He was converted in A.D. 386 and later became Bishop of Hippo. His earlier writings, such as Contra Academicos, De Beata Vita, and De Ordine, have a stong Neoplatonic flavor, which carried through into his later writings. He wrote, "let every good and true Christian understand that truth, wherever he finds it, belongs to his Lord" (Epistle 166).

Augustine taught that the mind of God contains the eternal, changeless Ideas, Forms, or Archetypes of all things. These creative Ideas are independent of matter. They are the rationes seminales which the divine Creative Will developed within time into seen forms (De Ideis, 2). The view that these Ideas are in the Word goes back to Philo and the Stoic Logoi Spermatikoi, and, from Augustine, passed into medieval theology.

To Augustine, created things tend toward non-being; but so long as they exist, they must assume some form. That form is the reflection of the eternal and immutable Form (De Libero Arbitrio 2, 17, 46). Evil is that which tends to non-being and also tends to make what is cease to be (De Moribus Ecclesiae, 2, 2, 2).

Others also contributed to the influence of Neoplatonism. Boethius (A.D. 480 - 524) wrote a Platonic theodicy, On The Consolation Of Philosophy, which had considerable influence in Christian theology.

Neoplatonic ideas also influenced Christianity, especially in the west, through the pseudonymous Dionysius The Areopagite, a work dated not earlier than A.D. 500. The author took the Neoplatonic ideas of Proclus and developed them into an esoteric Christianity. Erigena, Peter Lombard, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, and others carried on the pseudo-Dionysian theme.

Not all leaders of the Latin Church held a high regard for Greek philosophy. Jerome cried, "What has Horace to do with the Psalter, Virgil with the gospels, and Cicero with Paul?" (The Virgin's Profession).

The influence of the ancient philosophies is evident in various contemporary religious views and practices.

The Platonic concept of God as an impersonal One, pantheistically immanent in nature and of which all visible beings are emanations, the concept of mystical reunion of the human soul with the Divine Mind and the acquisition of esoteric gnosis through meditation, inner mental and psychic development and ecstasy, and the concept of the more or less unreality of material being are all present in the various modern "mind science" sects. In most of these systems, Christ is considered to be some kind of demigod, a second-rate Platonic Logos who has attained to a high degree of liberation from the mundane and achieved an advanced spiritual (metaphysical) state. The Arian view of Christ is vigorously taught by the Watchtower Society ("Jehovah's Witnesses").

It is in morality and ethics that philosophy has had its most far-reaching practical influence in Christian theology. This has developed on the one hand from the Neoplatonic view of sin, and on the other from the Stoic concept of ethical self-sufficiency.

In Platonism and its subsequent variations the question of the cause and nature of evil was basic. The general concept that sin and evil have positive essence contributed to and forms the basic premise of the doctrine of original sin. To be inherited, sin must have essence, real being; it must consist in some thing that causes evil choice and action, instead of being the moral character of the choice itself. With this mind set it is common to regard sin in the heart as an essence (e.g., a "virus") instead of a voluntary choice. This evil essence is regarded as a part of human nature. Although Augustine did not originate the concept, he passed it on to subsequent generations. Calvin built heavily upon it. It is with us today.


The Influence Of Greek Philosophy On The Development Of Christian Theology


I have more material, but they can't be pasted, but have to be typed in. They show how Calvin was influenced by Augustine's doctrine of total depravity, based on the belief that matter is evil.

 

[hedrick]

To be inherited, sin must have essence, real being; it must consist in some thing that causes evil choice and action, instead of being the moral character of the choice itself. With this mind set it is common to regard sin in the heart as an essence (e.g., a "virus") instead of a voluntary choice. This evil essence is regarded as a part of human nature. Although Augustine did not originate the concept, he passed it on to subsequent generations. Calvin built heavily upon it. It is with us today.

I admit that I haven't really looked at Augustine since college. But what I remember from there is that Augustine denied that evil has reality. It is a corruption of, or even lack of, good, but not a thing itself. Calvin takes the same view. He believes that we inherit a corrupted nature, which is unable to choose good without grace. But that doesn't mean that there's an actual reality to sin. Our nature is fundamentally good, but is messed up. Furthermore, it still reflects God's image, though in an imperfect way. According to Calvin, despite the Fall, God recognizes his image in us, and wants to restore it.

I do think that Calvin has a different approach than the OT, reflected in his misunderstanding of righteousness as moral perfection. But some of what you say doesn't seem right.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I pasted one aspect of Augustine's views. He was a prolific writer and some of what he wrote came from his Greek baggage and some from his Christian study, leading to contradictions. What he finally concluded or what future generations took from his final conclusions is what matters. IOW how would his views defend Christianity against the question of the atheist: if God is good how did he allow evil to come into the world?

Augustine

Quote
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.

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=227

IOW, sinless Adam became sinful through disobedience, and this sinfulness is handed down through sexual relations. In addition, Adams descendants share in Adam's guilt because they were present in his loins.

==============
Eastern Orthodox

Quote
In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημ&#945 is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man's "inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors" and that this is removed through baptism. St. Gregory Palamas taught that man's image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam's disobedience.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin

The EO believe in ancestral sin, but not transfered guilt. They believe that Adam's sin changed man and his situation.

========
Judaism

Quote
Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

IOW, it's NOT that we are tainted, ONLY that we are dealing with the consequences: living with knowledge of good and evil, ie. accountability, leading to judgment and sentencing through God's wrath, to hardship, to denial of access to the tree of life.

Me (!)

Man was created by God to form a family that loved his holiness and goodness. He was made afresh, with the potential to become mature, wise. He was able to choose between what his natural drives told him to do (consume, grow), like even a virus, the most basic organism, does, and what justice, mercy and love, the image of God imprinted in him, advised him to do. He was placed in a garden where he could do anything and not be paid back, except to not chose to be put in a system where all his actions would be paid back.


Inevitably, because of inexperience, he disobeyed God, and was sent into a world where ALL his actions would be paid back.

IOW, Adam's sin resulted not in:

1. Guilt passed on.
2. Bodily death (he could already die, the tree of life prevented that from happening).
3. Creation of a propensity to sin (he could already sin easily, and did sin).


But in:
1. Exile to a place where his actions were paid back.
2. Spiritual death (loss of ability to abide in God).

What could redeem the situation?

Background

God made Creation, but it , including man, was not perfect, completed. However He made man a partner in perfectng Creation, to manifest a physical aspect of the spiritual reality which existed in Heaven, His will being done on earth as it was done in heaven.

It is a comprehensive process, just as education is a comprehensive process. To complete creation, man must experience evil as well as good, so he can make an informed choice.

God places man in a garden, with attractive fruit, with no means to make competent decisions but with natural drives and what happens is the same thing that happens when you put candy in front of children! Strictly speaking you can't make a person accountable if they have no knowledge of what's right and what's wrong, so if you want to set up a family, for company, fellowship, where your children love you, where you could make accountable, differentiate obedience and disobedience, you would show them by loving your spouse in the way you want them to love you. Since they would not understand just by looking, but would by doing, He set up Creation so that you could play the part of His partner. He would set up tasks that He needed to do, that you would appreciate not having to do. In order for this to work smoothly, you would have to submit, not have authority, the right to command, just as His bride, the Church, must not have authority , set parameters, over the bridegroom, Christ.


Summary
God causes man to react by creating a situation with a situation for evil to occur where he is ejected from a safe place into the world so that he is oppressed and needs rescuing so that he values being on God's side, just as he caused Joseph to have a disturbing (obnoxious!) dream, with the potential to cause evil to occur, setting of a chain of events in order that Israel can learn about God's plan to form a family to fellowship with , and learn about His ability to complete that plan, and about his reliability, steadfastness, faithfulness, to complete that plan.


And this is just the outline!

A tip o' the hat to the Sages.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The Greek Versus the Hebrew View of Man
George Eldon Ladd

Quote
The foundations of the Greek view go back to the theology of the Orphic sect, which came to light in Greece in the sixth century B.C., and spread throughout the Greek world and into southern Italy, profoundly influencing Plato and later Greek thought. This theology is embodied in the ancient myth of Zagreus (Dionysus), begotten by Zeus of Demeter. Zagreus fell under the power of the Titans, wicked enemies of Zeus. In his effort to escape them, Zagreus changed himself into a bull; but the Titans captured him, tore him to pieces, and devoured him. However, Zeus blasted the Titans by a flash of lightning, and from their ashes arose the human race. Mankind thus possesses two elements: a divine element from Zagreus and a wicked element from the Titans. This mythology expresses the Orphic theology of the dualism of body and soul. Man must free himself from the Titanic elements and, purified, return to the gods, a fragment of whom is living in him. Expressed in other words, "man's duty is to free himself from the chains of the body in which the soul lies fast bound like the prisoner in his cell."16 This freedom is not easily achieved. Usually the soul at death flutters free in the air, only to enter into a new body. It may pass through a series of deaths and reincarnations. Finally, by the sacred rites of the cult and by a life of ascetic purity, man may escape the wheel of birth and become divine.17

The Greek Versus the Hebrew View of Man

===============
Quote
The Old Testament view of God, man, and the world is very different from Greek dualism. Fundamental to Hebrew thought is the belief that God is the creator, that the world is God's creation and is therefore in itself good. The Greek idea that the material world is the sphere of evil and a burden or a hindrance to the soul is alien to the Old Testament.

When God created the world, he saw that it was good (Gen. 1:31). The world was created for God's glory (Ps. 19:1); the ultimate goal and destiny of creation is to glorify and praise its creator (Ps. 98:7-9). The Hebrews had no concept of nature; to them the world was the scene of God's constant activity. Thunder was the voice of God (Ps. 29:3, 5); pestilence is the heavy hand of the Lord (I Sam. 5:6); human life is the breath of God inbreathed in man's face (Gen. 2:7; Ps. 104:29).

The Greek Versus the Hebrew View of Man

=====================

The Influence Of Greek Philosophy On The Development Of Christian Theology
by J. W. Jepson, D.Min.

Quote
ugustine (A.D. 354 - 430) spent several years of his earlier life in Manichaeism. He was converted in A.D. 386 and later became Bishop of Hippo. His earlier writings, such as Contra Academicos, De Beata Vita, and De Ordine, have a stong Neoplatonic flavor, which carried through into his later writings. He wrote, "let every good and true Christian understand that truth, wherever he finds it, belongs to his Lord" (Epistle 166).

Augustine taught that the mind of God contains the eternal, changeless Ideas, Forms, or Archetypes of all things. These creative Ideas are independent of matter. They are the rationes seminales which the divine Creative Will developed within time into seen forms (De Ideis, 2). The view that these Ideas are in the Word goes back to Philo and the Stoic Logoi Spermatikoi, and, from Augustine, passed into medieval theology.

To Augustine, created things tend toward non-being; but so long as they exist, they must assume some form. That form is the reflection of the eternal and immutable Form (De Libero Arbitrio 2, 17, 46). Evil is that which tends to non-being and also tends to make what is cease to be (De Moribus Ecclesiae, 2, 2, 2).

Others also contributed to the influence of Neoplatonism. Boethius (A.D. 480 - 524) wrote a Platonic theodicy, On The Consolation Of Philosophy, which had considerable influence in Christian theology.

Neoplatonic ideas also influenced Christianity, especially in the west, through the pseudonymous Dionysius The Areopagite, a work dated not earlier than A.D. 500. The author took the Neoplatonic ideas of Proclus and developed them into an esoteric Christianity. Erigena, Peter Lombard, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, and others carried on the pseudo-Dionysian theme.

Not all leaders of the Latin Church held a high regard for Greek philosophy. Jerome cried, "What has Horace to do with the Psalter, Virgil with the gospels, and Cicero with Paul?" (The Virgin's Profession).

The influence of the ancient philosophies is evident in various contemporary religious views and practices.

The Platonic concept of God as an impersonal One, pantheistically immanent in nature and of which all visible beings are emanations, the concept of mystical reunion of the human soul with the Divine Mind and the acquisition of esoteric gnosis through meditation, inner mental and psychic development and ecstasy, and the concept of the more or less unreality of material being are all present in the various modern "mind science" sects. In most of these systems, Christ is considered to be some kind of demigod, a second-rate Platonic Logos who has attained to a high degree of liberation from the mundane and achieved an advanced spiritual (metaphysical) state. The Arian view of Christ is vigorously taught by the Watchtower Society ("Jehovah's Witnesses").

It is in morality and ethics that philosophy has had its most far-reaching practical influence in Christian theology. This has developed on the one hand from the Neoplatonic view of sin, and on the other from the Stoic concept of ethical self-sufficiency.

In Platonism and its subsequent variations the question of the cause and nature of evil was basic. The general concept that sin and evil have positive essence contributed to and forms the basic premise of the doctrine of original sin. To be inherited, sin must have essence, real being; it must consist in some thing that causes evil choice and action, instead of being the moral character of the choice itself. With this mind set it is common to regard sin in the heart as an essence (e.g., a "virus") instead of a voluntary choice. This evil essence is regarded as a part of human nature. Although Augustine did not originate the concept, he passed it on to subsequent generations. Calvin built heavily upon it. It is with us today.


The Influence Of Greek Philosophy On The Development Of Christian Theology


I have more material, but they can't be pasted, but have to be typed in. They show how Calvin was influenced by Augustine's doctrine of total depravity, based on the belief that matter is evil.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Wordkeeper]

What does this have to do with anything?

Greek philosophy is responsible for the doctrine of original sin, condemning babies who die to hell and bringing minors under the juridiction of God's laws. Knock out original sin and you have a kinder, gentler world. Fairer too.

 

[Standing Up]

I believe the age of accountability, according to the Scriptures is twenty years old. Some believe it is thirteen years old from a faulty reading of Luke 2:42. The problem is that the Scriptures do not recognize such a date.
Bar-mitzvah, meaning “son of the covenant,” is celebrated by the Jews today, but this is solely based on religious traditions.
Now, let us examine the Scriptures that point to the age of accountability being twenty years old.

Interesting stuff.

20 is the age qualifying for war.

12 may be the accountable age.

Lk 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
v42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

IOW, until Jesus was 12, he did not accompany his parents. At age 12, he went with them.

The greek "kai" translated "and" in v42 could also be translated "but". Either way the two verses are clear.

So, something changed at age 12. Luke doesn't mention it for nothing.

2kings 21:1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hephzibah.

12 years old is okay to begin to reign.

As you mention, there is the traditional bar mitzvah, about 12-13 years of age. The reason for 12-13 sources to something.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Isaiah 7:13Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. 15“He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16“For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Greek philosophy is responsible for the doctrine of original sin, condemning babies who die to hell and bringing minors under the juridiction of God's laws. Knock out original sin and you have a kinder, gentler world. Fairer too.

You haven't demonstrated that at all.

 

[Wordkeeper]

You haven't demonstrated that at all.

Quote
Augustine’s outlook on sex was distorted by ideas from the world outside the Bible. Because so much philosophy was based on dualism, in which the physical was categorized as evil but the spiritual as good, some philosophers idealized the celibate state. Sexual relations were physical and therefore evil.
................
Quote
In Romans 5, Paul addresses the matter of sin. In verse 12 he states, “Therefore . . . sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” (NRSV). Later in the chapter, Paul juxtaposes the sin of Adam with the righteousness of Christ: “Just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (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.

The Original View of Original Sin


=============

Quote
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin[25] is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire",[26][27] resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[2] When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.[28] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[29] He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise, and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.[30] In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[31]

Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


==========

Today we understand that men are different from the natural world. The fledgling in the nest will nudge its sibling out of the nest to ensure it receives more nourishment, increasing it's chances of survival. Men however, know God exists. They have faith that God who created them will provide both for the sibling and themselves.

Why then do most men sin?

The same reason most of the one million Israelites sinned. They let their natural side rule their responses.

Numbers 14:24But because my servant Caleb has a different spirit and follows me wholeheartedly, I will bring him into the land he went to, and his descendants will inherit it.

Why did God give men freewill?

Because only freewill bears the fruit of love.

1 John 4:8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. )

 

[Keachian]

The passages about the wilderness wanderings being used in this context fail to understand why it was those above 20 who were to be punished by dying of attrition, while Judaism counts adulthood from about age 13 to be a part of the army you had to be older than 20 so all those of fighting age who refused to take the promised land under the Sovereignty of God were to die in the wilderness for their sin.

 

[Keachian]

Even in historical credobaptist thought there is no need for the "Age of Accountability" the 1689 London Baptist Confession delineates in para 10.4

Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.​

The regeneration of persons being the work of the spirit and not some work of man. There is just no switch between it being "God saves all" to "God saves some who turn to him"

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Greek philosophy is responsible for the doctrine of original sin, condemning babies who die to hell and bringing minors under the juridiction of God's laws. Knock out original sin and you have a kinder, gentler world. Fairer too.

No it isn't. And no you don't.

 

[Wordkeeper]

The passages about the wilderness wanderings being used in this context fail to understand why it was those above 20 who were to be punished by dying of attrition, while Judaism counts adulthood from about age 13 to be a part of the army you had to be older than 20 so all those of fighting age who refused to take the promised land under the Sovereignty of God were to die in the wilderness for their sins

All were at risk and all murmured. It says the entire congregation wanted to stone Joshua.

Only those above twenty, both men and women, even those who couldn't fight were barred from entering rest.

Even in historical credobaptist thought there is no need for the "Age of Accountability" the 1689 London Baptist Confession delineates in para 10.4

Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.​

The regeneration of persons being the work of the spirit and not some work of man. There is just no switch between it being "God saves all" to "God saves some who turn to him"

Amazing! I must admit that I've never heard this interpretation before and actually considered it a good option. However problems crop up.

What must I do to be saved? Nothing! The wind yada, yada yada.

Why should I not then be baptized? What for? The wind blah, blah, blah.

The incident does throw up some interesting questions, though. Was it a Greek conversation or an Aramaic conversation?

Quote
Bart Ehrman has published an argument concluding[bless and do not curse] the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in Jn 3 “could not have happened, at least not as it is described in the Gospel of John” (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, p. 155). We present Ehrman’s argument here with brief critique. As a preview, our main gripe with Ehrman’s presentation (more fully explained below) is that whereas Ehrman supposes an original Aramaic conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus would necessarily have had Jesus using an Aramaic word which can only mean “from above,” but not “second time,” it turns out the ancient Aramaic versions we do actually have, such as the Syriac Peshitta, have “again”[bless and do not curse] (all of the major English translations of the Peshitta render the Aramaic men derish in Jn 3:3 either as “again,” or “anew”).[1] Further, if the Aramaic for “again” which we do find in the ancient Aramaic version could have been used in an original Aramaic conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus (and there is no good reason to think it could not have been) then both the original conversation in Aramaic and the translation of it into Greek make perfectly good sense, and Ehrman’s argument has come to ruin.

The “Born Again” Narrative in John 3: An Aramaic Impossibility? Well, No! | katachriston

Also, this text puts paid to your view:

John 3: 18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

Thanks for responding though.