At what point is a child responsible for his/her own salvation?

[LastSeven]

As a father this is an important question for me. At what point is a child responsible for his/her own salvation?

Clearly babies who die have never had the chance to accept Jesus as their saviour, but I can't imagine that they would be destined for hell. However, the Bible does teach that we are each responsible for our own salvation in Jesus. We are not saved simply for belonging to a group of people (ie. Jews).

Obviously something is missing in this logic to explain dying infants entering into heaven. As far as I know there is nothing in scriptures that tell us that at a certain age you become responsible for your own salvation. But Paul did tell the guard that if he believed in Jesus, he and his entire household would be saved. (Acts 16:30-31)

Did Paul mean that through the guard's influence, the other members of his household would eventually also accept Jesus? Or did he mean that the other members of his household are automatically saved if he believes? The man is the head of the household so it would make some sense to me if the household automatically inherits the salvation of the man. In the same way that Jesus is the head of our kingdom and we inherit our holiness from him. (Romans 11:16)

Is it possible that only when a child leaves the household (to marry another) that he becomes responsible for his own salvation, as he then becomes the head of his own household?

 

[hedrick]

This depends largely upon how you think judgement is done. E.g. universalists will have an obvious answer. Calvinists will differ from Arminians in approach. And even within those communities there are varying approaches to non-Christians.

As I'm sure you know, pretty much all Christians think that young children will be saved. You seem to be asking about the dividing line. I doubt that there is a specific age. If everyone starts out saved, more likely there comes a point when some people change their orientation so that they no longer trust and live in dependence upon their parents and God. Presumably this would be rare or nonexistent in very young children, but I'd hate to specify an exact dividing line.

There are stages that all children go through when they start developing an independence of their parents. Perhaps at that point some start to develop this orientation. But I don't think anyone would want to say that all "terrible twos" or even rebellious teens are necessarily damned.

I'm afraid the only answer is "God knows."

Similarly, I don't think in most cases there is a specific time when children become responsible. Some children go through a specific conversion experience, just as some adults do. But I think commonly as they grow children come to take on more responsibility for their faith, in many steps or over time.

 

[razzelflabben]

As a father this is an important question for me. At what point is a child responsible for his/her own salvation?

Clearly babies who die have never had the chance to accept Jesus as their saviour, but I can't imagine that they would be destined for hell. However, the Bible does teach that we are each responsible for our own salvation in Jesus. We are not saved simply for belonging to a group of people (ie. Jews).

Obviously something is missing in this logic to explain dying infants entering into heaven. As far as I know there is nothing in scriptures that tell us that at a certain age you become responsible for your own salvation. But Paul did tell the guard that if he believed in Jesus, he and his entire household would be saved. (Acts 16:30-31)

Did Paul mean that through the guard's influence, the other members of his household would eventually also accept Jesus? Or did he mean that the other members of his household are automatically saved if he believes? The man is the head of the household so it would make some sense to me if the household automatically inherits the salvation of the man. In the same way that Jesus is the head of our kingdom and we inherit our holiness from him. (Romans 11:16)

Is it possible that only when a child leaves the household (to marry another) that he becomes responsible for his own salvation, as he then becomes the head of his own household?

I have to agree with the previous poster that we don't know for sure, only God does. Traditionally, the "age of accountability" which is the church wording for what you are asking, is 13, based on the Jewish idea of becoming an adult. The following article does a pretty good job I think of explaining all this...that being said, we have to come back to "only God knows". Personally, I was 6 when I made my decision to follow Christ, and I never looked back, but I know very few people that made a decision that young that don't walk away...in fact, most of the people I personally know, only remain faithful to God when their decision to follow was made as a teen or adult, which in my way of thinking adds credibility to the idea of somewhere around the age of 13....just a thought for what it's worth...Where do I find the age of accountability in the Bible? What happens to babies and young children when they die?

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

The Word of God tells us that from our very youth we are born into an evil nature. So no we are not born innocent, therefore age has no bearing on salvation, other wise we would have no need to be born again from above by the Holy Spirit.

Also salvation is a gift from God, and no man can come to the Son except the Father first draws him. We are first called by God in order that we might believe in his Word.

But God is not an unrighteous God that he would condemn the innocent along with the guilty. But none the less, God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and he will have compassion on whom he will have compassion. The Lord knows who's names are written in the book of Life.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Salvation only comes by way of God's mercy, even the faith to believe in Jesus is a gift from God.

 

[LastSeven]

Thanks for your thoughts guys. I understand that scripture does not give us a clear answer to this question, and that is why I posed the question here, so that I can get your opinions. You don't need to prove that your opinion is right, just tell me what you think makes sense to you.

I am not necessarily expecting there to be an "age of accountability" as it pertains to a certain age. I don't think that makes sense because not everybody matures at the same rate.

I do however believe that it makes sense for there to be some kind of a cut off point in everyone's life where they become responsible for their own salvation. What do you guys think of the idea that leaving your father's household is that cutoff point. Do you think scripture could support that theory?

Romans 11:16 says "if the root is holy, all the branches are holy". This applies to Jesus and his church of course but the relationships within a family are symbols of the relationship between God and his church.

Ephesians 5
28 Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. ... even as Christ also the church; 30 because we are members of his body. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church.

This passage compares the marriage between a man and a woman with the marriage of Christ and his church. But it goes further than that. It specifically says "for this cause" (for this reason) a man will marry a woman. What is the reason? I believe it's telling us that marriage is a symbol and a reminder of the relationship between God and his church. Just as Jesus told us to break the bread and drink the wine as a reminder, and to keep the sabbath holy as a reminder of our eternal rest to come. And God told the Israelites to practice feasts as symbols and reminders of his relationship with them and his plan for them.

Furthermore Genesis 2:24 says "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.". If a married couple are considered "one flesh" then how can one of the two be holy and the other not?

Based on that I believe it is possible that Romans 11 (If the root is holy all the branches are holy) could also be a symbol of the relationship between a man and his household. If the man is holy, his entire household is holy.

This would explain what Paul said to the jail guard in Acts 16:31 - “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

What do you guys think?

 

[Unix]

Something like 10 for girls and 11 for boys. Just what I would assume. I work at an elementary school that admits students age 6-14 years.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.


Ezekiel 18:19
Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Just as sin is non transferable in the eyes of the Lord, neither is righteousness.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.


Ezekiel 18:19
Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Just as sin is non transferable in the eyes of the Lord, neither is righteousness.

Glad you are posting here bro, how would you see David and his child dying because of his deed, though we know Nathan said your sin was taken away ye shall not die.

More after a sowing and reaping there? Which then again, I cant find compareable to Job, so Im like which is it?

I mean, I notice the same wording surround Jesus who made his soul an offering for sin (though your sins be as scarlet= or as putting the scarlet robe upon him) they shall be white as snow, or as him bearing the inquities of us all. Like our wickedness was placed on Christ, him who knew no sin became that very thing that we might be the righteousness of God in Him.

But then I have supposed looking at David somewhat, and how it shows the LORD having struck the child sick (that he died) for David's deed, I have thought (maybe) in some way it spake (forward in Christ) of Him who would come of his own loins, or of Jesus Himself who too took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. Or upon whom the sword was raised up upon (Smite the shepherd) so to speak. Or perhaps (as one who bare our sicknesses) as he said, surely ye will quote this to me "Physician heal thyself" in some respects, not sure.

Theres other places I was looking at. But perhaps one places is speaking of fathers and children (dying for the sins of the other) is speakng in a temporal sense in one and an eternal sense in another, or in a different sense altogether. Not sure because we see David sin and his child died. We see we have sinned and Christ dying. We see our wickedness and His righteousness, we see he was made sin (and his soul and offering) and we made the righteouness of God in Him. And various other comparisons.

Havent really looked at it closely enough I suppose.

God bless you brother

 

[LastSeven]

And when David's son was sick he wept and fasted so that the Lord might keep the child alive, but once the child died David stopped weeping and fasting and he said "though he won't come back to me, I will go to him". So he knew his child was safe in heaven and he would see him again.

Now in this case, although we are born sinners, the child was saved even without declaring his love for God and without baptism of any kind. Was the child saved because he was too young to be condemned? Or was the child saved because David was saved?

 

[LastSeven]

Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.


Ezekiel 18:19
Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Just as sin is non transferable in the eyes of the Lord, neither is righteousness.

That seems pretty black and white, but David's child was saved. Where did the child get his salvation from?

 

[hedrick]

A lot depends upon how you think salvation works. The idea that all infants are saved makes a lot more sense if you think many adults are saved, and that salvation comes from caring about others, more than believing the right thing. In that case the distinction starts as a child starts developing a concept of self, and moves from a naive trust in parents to a wider world that includes self with its own needs, and many other people. Some children simply don't make that transition correctly, and end up as adults that I can only called hardened: not caring about other people or doing the right thing.

I had an interesting discussion with a pretty perceptive teenager this morning, about another topic. He noted that you don't really start seeing who the "losers" are going to be until you get into high school. What he meant by losers was people who don't care about others, who start to become bullies or discipline problems or criminals. You can see this pattern in some preteens, but it's less common for them to be seriously hardened.

In contrast, if you think people are by default not saved, and need an explicit faith in Christ, then meshing this with an idea that all infants are saved is really hard, because you pretty much need some time at which the way God treats us sort of reverses. It's hard to see how to make that work without a magic age.

I should note that Calvinists have normally thought that all infants, or at least all infants of Christian parents, are saved. I'm sort of a Calvinist. But I've wondered if this traditional view is wrong. God knows (and in one sense is responsible for) the trajectory of your life. He knows when a child's early development of independence is the start of something that is going to result in a hardened adult, even though we can't tell. There may indeed be elect and non-elect infants, even though we don't see the difference. But this may well be hyper-Calvinism, which would be kind of odd for me, since I tend to be at the liberal end of the Calvinist tradition.

But one frightening thing for a parent is that this transition from child to adult is surely affected to a great extent by parents. There are clearly kids that were going to grow up rotten no matter what. And there are people who came from the most abusive possible childhoods and became fine adults. Yet in many cases it really does matter. But this is no shock. Traditionally, Christians have thought that evangelism is important because God depends upon us to some extent to reach others. This is another example.

But in terms of your original question, it does seem reasonable to me to think that people who end up as "losers" are people who didn't properly make the transition from child to adult. But understand that I read Jesus as saying that in the final analysis, what God demands is a basic loving orientation, and not calling him "Lord, Lord." [I am *not* saying that the sole content of his teaching is "be nice." Indeed I think he's quite clear that the Kingdom of God is centered on God, and Jesus matters. But God may be willing to work with someone who didn't quite get what Jesus, or even God, is about as long as he is basically faithful.]

Of course we're not necessarily frozen at age 16. It's not unheard of for adults to get pulled into a lifestyle that slowly hardens them, and adults are sometimes rescued.

 

[LastSeven]

Something like 10 for girls and 11 for boys. Just what I would assume. I work at an elementary school that admits students age 6-14 years.

So you believe there is a hard cut off line for all children, or does it depend on the child? Could it be that for some children God does not expect them to take responsibility until age 12? Or 14? What about mentally challenged people?

Is it a judgment call that God makes on a case by case basis, or is there a hard and fast rule that he follows? I don't expect you to know the answer of course, these are just some interesting thoughts to consider.

 

[Fireinfolding]

And when David's son was sick he wept and fasted so that the Lord might keep the child alive, but once the child died David stopped weeping and fasting and he said "though he won't come back to me, I will go to him". So he knew his child was safe in heaven and he would see him again.

Now in this case, although we are born sinners, the child was saved even without declaring his love for God and without baptism of any kind. Was the child saved because he was too young to be condemned? Or was the child saved because David was saved?

Well, David's reaction (after the child was dead) was brought to our attention by his own servants, which for some reason makes me wonder if its not a type for something other is what I am considering.

You have David, David's sin (children not dying for the sins of their parents) that which come of David's loins (son of David) which Jesus would ask, why does he call him Lord? And he that come of David dying for sin. David's child struck sick of the LORD, the Shepherd smitten and him bearing our inquities and sicknesses. There seems to be a slight ressemblance of something in there. David wouldnt die for his sin, though the soul that sinneth shall die, but God made his soul an offering for sin. And if David calls (who) they say is David's son (Lord) how then can he be his son, and likewise how can a son (as in David's child) bear the iniquity of a father, whereas Christ could.

It just seems there is more there then meets the eye, and in Davids reaction, even the servants note as odd, almost as if desiring to draw our eye to this thing a bit closer.

I cant say, just wondering is all.

 

[Unix]

Not that late, no.

Or 14?

+ few years for mentally challenged.
11 years for girls, 12 years for boys for deaf. You can comprehend pretty much.
12 years for girls, 13 years for boys for blind. You can listen to audio-Bible, sermons. As I'm interested in handicapped people, wouldn't mind having a disabled friend, I've notice that many adults who for example have impaired vision, use that just as an exuse to not be Christian. I've only met one blind woman who was Christian

What about mentally challenged people?

At the age when the child must realize that bullying others is wrong, is a rule. I base that on how Jesus taught we should treat each other.

Is it a judgment call that God makes on a case by case basis, or is there a hard and fast rule that he follows? I don't expect you to know the answer of course, these are just some interesting thoughts to consider.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Glad you are posting here bro, how would you see David and his child dying because of his deed, though we know Nathan said your sin was taken away ye shall not die.

More after a sowing and reaping there? Which then again, I cant find compareable to Job, so Im like which is it?

I mean, I notice the same wording surround Jesus who made his soul an offering for sin (though your sins be as scarlet= or as putting the scarlet robe upon him) they shall be white as snow, or as him bearing the inquities of us all. Like our wickedness was placed on Christ, him who knew no sin became that very thing that we might be the righteousness of God in Him.

But then I have supposed looking at David somewhat, and how it shows the LORD having struck the child sick (that he died) for David's deed, I have thought (maybe) in some way it spake (forward in Christ) of Him who would come of his own loins, or of Jesus Himself who too took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. Or upon whom the sword was raised up upon (Smite the shepherd) so to speak. Or perhaps (as one who bare our sicknesses) as he said, surely ye will quote this to me "Physician heal thyself" in some respects, not sure.

Theres other places I was looking at. But perhaps one places is speaking of fathers and children (dying for the sins of the other) is speakng in a temporal sense in one and an eternal sense in another, or in a different sense altogether. Not sure because we see David sin and his child died. We see we have sinned and Christ dying. We see our wickedness and His righteousness, we see he was made sin (and his soul and offering) and we made the righteouness of God in Him. And various other comparisons.

Havent really looked at it closely enough I suppose.

God bless you brother

The child dying because of David's sin does not mean that the child was to be held accountable for David's sin. Just as Jesus being an offering for our sins does not mean he is to blame, or be held accountable for our own sinful actions.

David suffered many things for his own sin, even though it was manifest through other members of his own family; which I believe was a similitude of things to come for Israel.

The Lord said to David in 2 Samuel 12:11; "Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of the sun."

So even though David was the one who was guilty of sin, his whole house felt the effects of that very sin. Just as with the case of Adams sin, we are all even still today feeling the effects of it by way of death to our fleshy bodies. But that does not mean we will be held accountable for Adam's sin, nor Adam for ours. But each man is accountable for his own.

But that does not mean that others won't feel the effects of sin in other peoples lives. Just as we see here...

Exodus 34:7
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

But again these things have a much deeper spiritual meaning, just as the scriptures show the first born son (which is fleshy by nature) would die in order to make way for the second born son (which is spiritual) who would also reign as David's seed.

2 Samuel 12:24;" And David comforted Bath-sheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon:and the Lord loved him."

 

[Fireinfolding]

The child dying because of David's sin does not mean that the child was to be held accountable for David's sin. Just as Jesus being an offering for our sins does not mean he is to blame, or be held accountable for our own sinful actions.

David suffered many things for his own sin, even though it was manifest through other members of his own family; which I believe was a similitude of things to come for Israel.

The Lord said to David in 2 Samuel 12:11; "Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of the sun."

So even though David was the one who was guilty of sin, his whole house felt the effects of that very sin. Just as with the case of Adams sin, we are all even still today feeling the effects of it by way of death to our fleshy bodies. But that does not mean we will be held accountable for Adam's sin, nor Adam for ours. But each man is accountable for his own.

But that does not mean that others won't feel the effects of sin in other peoples lives. Just as we see here...

Exodus 34:7
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

But again these things have a much deeper spiritual meaning, just as the scriptures show the first born son (which is fleshy by nature) would die in order to make way for the second born son (which is spiritual) who would also reign as David's seed.

2 Samuel 12:24;" And David comforted Bath-sheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon:and the Lord loved him."

Thanks bro, should I ask or no as it relates to visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children in respects to those specific generations?

I mean because it speaks of visiting iniquity upon them unto that, but in respects to children dying for the sins of their fathers it says here...

2Ch 25:4 But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

But I suppose the two are unrelated maybe, Im not sure, because when David sinned Nathan said God took that away (ye shall not die) but even still because of this deed (David did) the child born to thee will die.

When it says...

neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.


2Cr 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

As ours were laid upon him in that way. So to me (as well) Im thinking theres a similitude of some kind that can be shown there in the son of David (even through death) and considering every man dying for his own sin in that way perhaps, where our become his that his righteousness ours. The picture could be shown that way as well Im thinking.

Not saying so either way, I keep my conclusions to myself and think aloud but you know what I mean.

Thanks bro

 

[Unix]

I got a reply by PM from You which verses You refered to by that. And got as an answer: 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Sam 12:14, Mtt 22:42-44, Lk 20:44
2 Sam 12:14 (2010 NABRE OT): but since you have utterly spurned the LORD by this deed, the child born to you will surely die."

And if David calls (who) they say is David's son (Lord) how then can he be his son, and likewise how can a son (as in David's child) bear the iniquity of a father, whereas Christ could.

You gave so good passages from Ezekiel, InSpiritInTruth, those'll be the only verses I read from the book of Ezekiel. Cross reference according to 2010 NABRE OT:
Mt 16:27 (2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, quickly Anglicized July 15. 2011 by me using ©Microsoft Word 2002): 'For the Son of man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will reward each one according to his behaviour.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Yes david was a man after God's own heart, save here...

2Sam 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife [to be] thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

He continues...

2Sam 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

1Kings 15:5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Thanks bro, should I ask or no as it relates to visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children in respects to those specific generations?

I mean because it speaks of visiting iniquity upon them unto that, but in respects to children dying for the sins of their fathers it says here...

2Ch 25:4 But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

But I suppose the two are unrelated maybe, Im not sure, because when David sinned Nathan said God took that away (ye shall not die) but even still because of this deed (David did) the child born to thee will die.

When it says...

neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.


2Cr 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

As ours were laid upon him in that way. So to me (as well) Im thinking theres a similitude of some kind that can be shown there in the son of David (even through death) and considering every man dying for his own sin in that way perhaps, where our become his that his righteousness ours. The picture could be shown that way as well Im thinking.

Not saying so either way, I keep my conclusions to myself and think aloud but you know what I mean.

Thanks bro

Yes it can be seen in that way Sis, and no you don't have to keep your conclusions to yourself.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Yes it can be seen in that way Sis, and no you don't have to keep your conclusions to yourself.

I did not mean with you, as me and you talk privately but on an open board I usually wont I meant

Concluding things affirmatively seems to get someone in more trouble and arguments then just alluding to something (but keeping what you might believe about it conclusively) to yourself.

Thats what I meant bro