What is the Age of Accountability?

[Albion]

True. But if original sin were true then infants would need forgiveness of that sin else die as an infant and be lost.

Well, that IS what the largest Christian church taught until only a few years ago, so it cannot be unthinkable.

 

[TheSeabass]

Couldn't this be so true of us today as well? That we are now reading Scripture for ourselves, or allowing appointed people do it for us and either mistakenly or willfully misinterpreting it?

Sure, this is why you see so many debates, contradictions and disagreements over the bible...just on this forum alone. Each person will have to read, study and make up his/her own mind as to what he/she believes then stand before God on judgment day. Those that got it right will hear " Well done, good and faithful servant" and those that THOUGHT they had it right will hear " I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
So obviously it is important a person get it right.

 

[TheSeabass]

Well, that IS what the largest Christian church taught until only a few years ago, so it cannot be unthinkable.

They were and are wrong about original sin which lead to other errors as immaculate conception and infant baptism.

 

[98cwitr]

True. But if original sin were true then infants would need forgiveness of that sin else die as an infant and be lost.

I'm not sure I believe that is how original sin works. I think it's that from birth we will be capable of sin (and do sin...you ever seen a 2 year old say "THAT'S MY TOY!" and rip it from the hands of another child who was playing with it? ), whereas the accountability is where that sin is then held against us.

 

[Albion]

They were and are wrong about original sin which lead to other errors as immaculate conception and infant baptism.

Perhaps on some of that, or all of that, but that's actually beside the point.

When you wrote this:

But if original sin were true then infants would need forgiveness of that sin else die as an infant and be lost.

You made it seem as though unbaptized infants being denied heaven because of unforgiven sin was somehow illogical or unthinkable, yet it has been the prevailing view in the history of Christianity.

 

[TheSeabass]

Right...and it doesn't define youth.

Youth, early part of life, not conception/birth. Paul warns "flee youthful lusts", no lusts, no evil imagination, no sin at birth but there is in youth. Paul also said "Let no man despise your youth; but you be an example to them that believe,...." The newly conceived cannot be examples but one in his youth can be. The Proverbs writer says "Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth,...." One at birth does not have the mental cognitive skills to remember or even know the Creator but one in youth does. There are obvious differences in conception/birth and youth.

 

[TheSeabass]

I'm not sure I believe that is how original sin works. I think it's that from birth we will be capable of sin (and do sin...you ever seen a 2 year old say "THAT'S MY TOY!" and rip it from the hands of another child who was playing with it? ), whereas the accountability is where that sin is then held against us.

One at birth has the future capability of sinning after he learns good from evil. The 2 year old then must be taught good from evil and be able to mentally process it as he matures intellectually. I can only guess Jesus went through His 'terrible twos' phase but was without sin.

 

[Tangible]

This shows the 'age of accountability' for as long as a child does not know between good and evil he is not accountable to God's law and sin has no power over him....

You have literally mined the text for one specific phrase, ripped it violently from its context, and used it to support an insupportable doctrine. You have also exceeded the text of the extra-contextual phrase and asserted that men are not accountable for sin when there is no knowledge of good and evil. Where is the scriptural support for this part of your claim?

For those playing along at home, here is the passage in question, quoted in context, where it can plainly be seen that this phrase Decisionists use (almost uniquely) to justify their position is merely a descriptor of young children, in the same way as one might say "those who are no taller than this" or "those not yet potty trained."

There is absolutely nothing in the context to justify their position. Pure eisegesis.

Deuteronomy 1
“And the Lord heard your words and was angered, and he swore, ‘Not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good land that I swore to give to your fathers, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh. He shall see it, and to him and to his children I will give the land on which he has trodden, because he has wholly followed the Lord!’ Even with me the Lord was angry on your account and said, ‘You also shall not go in there. Joshua the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall enter. Encourage him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it. 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. But as for you, turn, and journey into the wilderness in the direction of the Red Sea.’

“Then you answered me, ‘We have sinned against the Lord. We ourselves will go up and fight, just as the Lord our God commanded us.’ And every one of you fastened on his weapons of war and thought it easy to go up into the hill country. And the Lord said to me, ‘Say to them, Do not go up or fight, for I am not in your midst, lest you be defeated before your enemies.’ So I spoke to you, and you would not listen; but you rebelled against the command of the Lord and presumptuously went up into the hill country.

as with Paul in Romans 7:8-9 when he was a child.

" For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once:..."

No law = sin is dead, has no power. So when Paul says he was once alive "without the law" means once in his life sin was dead to him, it had no power over him. This was when he was a child not knowing the difference between good and evil. Yet when Paul matured and learned good from evil (when the commandment came) , then sin sprang up in Paul. Sin sprang up later in his life not when he was conceived or born.

First of all, Paul makes no reference to his age when he describes himself as being in ignorance of the law. Age is irrelevant to this discussion.

And again, you have ripped a passage completely out of context and have used it in a poor attempt to prop up a doctrine that simply cannot stand on the shifting sands upon which it is built.

I quoted the passage in context in my previous post. If this means what you say it means, it would be in contradiction with numerous other passages, and even with the context in which it appears.

You just can't do doctrine that way. I don't care how much you want the bible to say something, you can't just mine the word of God for a snippet here and a phrase there that, when you squint your eyes and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] your head slightly to the left, just might mean what you want it to say.

The word of God cannot be broken. It means what it says and it says what it means. A text without context is a pretext for a proof text, as they say.

 

[Apex]

From the moment of conception.

Most fertilized eggs don't naturally implant and get flushed from the body. I find this to be a poor design if each fertilized egg was a culpable "person". I think a better term we can both agree on is: From the moment of ensoulment. Even though we disagree when this happens, we understand that whenever this happens "personhood" begins.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

I personally always thought the age was 10.

 

[Tangible]

"Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."

This context is about the Pharisees who thought they were of God and thought they knew the scriptures yet were really ignorant and prideful and lost.

When Jesus says "If ye were blind, ye should have no sins" meaning if they admitted they were ignorant of the scripture and admitted they were not of God then they could have seen salvation (have no sin).

"but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth" yet the Pharisees, in their self-righteousness, said 'we see' leaving them lost in their sins.

Nowhere do I see then that the Pharisees had the guilt of Adam's sin but Christ holding them accountable for their own sins in rejecting Him for their own self-righteousness.

That's NOT what this passage means!

The etiology of your doctrine would be that no one would be accountable for any actual sin of which they were unaware. Sins of omission? Never mind. Worshipers of false gods? You get a pass.

Our Lord here is referring to a specific sin, not sin in general, not our innate proclivity to sin, not our fallen human nature. The specific sin Jesus is referring to here is the sin of rejecting him as Messiah. Look at the passage.

John 15
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’

It's right there in the passage.

 

[Tangible]

@TheSeabass and other Decisionists ...

You say that children who have not yet reached the age/point/ability of decision are justified by default and therefore saved.

You also say that children who have not reached this point are not capable of having faith in Christ.

So please show me in scripture the precise passage that clearly indicates how one can be saved without having saving faith in the promises of God as fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

 

[Tangible]

The baptizing of children is totally unnecessary for many reasons...

One is that they probably have not sinned yet, although they will, for sure, someday.

They do not need God's gifts given through baptism because they have sinned, they need them because they are sinners.

The other is that they have no concept of what sin is or being guilty or the need to be forgiven or even the act of repentance.... So what good is baptizing a totally oblivious human.

Because they need what God gives through baptism.

Being aware of your sin, admitting that you are a sinner, having the desire to be forgiven, repenting of these sins and consciously turning from doing sinful things..,,, These are the qualities of not only an accountable person but one with a heart to be saved.

No, these are the qualities of a SAVED person. According to scripture, only those whom God has justified and granted the gifts of repentance and faith in Christ are capable of doing the things you list above.

1 Corinthians 2
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Once you have taken the steps by admitting and repenting, asking for forgiveness... accepting Christ as your only hope of salvation by what He did at Calvary.... then you are baptized in obedience to Christ.

Which is normal for an adult, adding only catechesis to your list, but this not a prescribed order or a scriptural requirement. God can give his gifts to his little ones because it is not they who must earn or qualify for them, but God who is graciously giving his gifts.

Baptizing an infant only makes the parents and the church members happy. The child is not even aware of what is going on.

Which is the beauty of infant baptism. The child can do absolutely nothing but lie there and passively receive God's precious gifts. They don't think they are doing anything at all to earn or deserve God's favor. They cannot even conceive of trying to please God by their own works or merits. They are the very image of what Christ meant when he said that we must receive his kingdom in the same way as a little child would.

Infant, child, adolescent, adult, elder -- we are all the same. We are sinners in need of God's gifts, which are freely given through his Word, either through the proclamation of the Gospel or through the Word with water in Holy Baptism.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I don't subscribe to the concept "age" of accountability. There is A "point" of accountability which is different for everyone.

OK. So if a person reaches that "point" of accountability unsaved, and he dies, he is condemned, correct?

 

[Tangible]

True. But if original sin were true then infants would need forgiveness of that sin else die as an infant and be lost.

So baptize your babies.

 

[John Chalmers]

God knows each person (everybody has different ability to comprehend according to there upbringing and given capacity) so to put an age on it doesn't really make sense...all it does is allow us to judge others by a line in the sand that we put there not God.

 

[Tangible]

ability to comprehend

So is that a prerequisite for God to save us?

 

[hedrick]

ability to comprehend

So is that a prerequisite for God to save us?

Most Christians, from quite a variety of theological orientations, think that infants and young children are saved. Not because they're sinless, but by the grace of God. I'm not selling any particular view here, but if this is right, ability to comprehend is more a prerequisite for people to be responsible than for them to be saved.

 

[Tangible]

Most Christians, from quite a variety of theological orientations, think that infants and young children are saved. Not because they're sinless, but by the grace of God.

While this is a lovely sentiment, and one that I share, we simply cannot make up doctrine from our own human hopes and desires. We must base our doctrines on the unchanging word of God. Try as they might, no one has ever discovered a passage of canonical scripture that clearly states that people below a certain age or with a diminished ability to reason are saved in any way other than through faith in the promises of God fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

The very proposition produces all kinds of doubt and misgivings. If by age, what exactly is that age? If by ability to reason, to what degree is sufficient? If my child died of cancer at age seven, was she really saved?

Decisionist theology puts the final say in one's salvation back on the individual. They must be capable of doing X in order to be saved. Rightly they ask, what about people who through no fault of their own are incapable of doing X (repenting, believing, obeying, etc.) in order to be saved? They therefore suppose that those unable to do X must be able to be saved some other way, because the alternative is unthinkable. Enter the age of accountability. Magically, and completely without scriptural support, those unable to do X in order to be saved are now given a pass. Since they cannot be saved because of their ABILITY to do X, they are therefore saved because of their INABILITY to do X.

It's a sad state of affairs, and one that through the grace of God I finally recognized and rejected after 40 years. Decisionist doctrine has no scriptural basis, and yet is touted as being the only scriptural soteriology by Christians who claim to take the bible seriously and really should know better.

I'm not selling any particular view here, but if this is right, ability to comprehend is more a prerequisite for people to be responsible than for them to be saved.

 

[writewords]

OK. So if a person reaches that "point" of accountability unsaved, and he dies, he is condemned, correct?

Correct.