Age of Accountability = Something + Scripture

Note: In my June 4th Extreme Sunday School lesson I discussed choices regarding spiritual authority. The two primary options I laid out are Sola Scripture (Scripture Alone) and Something + Scripture. You may want to review that lesson and the ‘mind map’ that I created because this post builds on that foundation.

Two of my VERY close friends in ministry and DEAR Christian brothers disagree with my interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the concept of the ‘Age of Accountability’. Not too long ago I made the statement in my Bible class that there are no verses in the Bible that teach the age of accountability. These dear brothers challenged me to look further on the subject and provided me with an with article from a website called gotquestions.org which outlines their belief on the subject. Click Here to Read the Article.

In the spirit of Christian accountability and comradery which teaches us that “iron sharpens iron” (Prov 27:17) to “test everything and hold on to the good”(1 Thess 5:21) and to “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1 ), I provide this critique to the gotquestions.org article. I welcome similar critiques and feedback from my Christian brothers and sisters who visit this site.

To begin, I’ve taken the primary truth statements made in the gotquestions.org article and analyzed them based upon whether they were Biblical, Extra Biblical, or Contrary to Scripture / Pure Speculation.

The graphic below shows the results of this analysis.

Critique

First off, let me commend the author of this article for affirming the fact that scripture teaches that all humans, including infants are born with Adam’s imputed sin and are guilty before God. The author is to be commended for not making the claim that baby’s go to heaven because they are innocent. Scripture clearly teaches that they are not innocent. In fact, I completely agree with the article until the LAST sentence of the second paragraph that states, “salvation is an individual choice”. It is this claim which causes the article to completely wonder off the ‘Biblical Reservation”.

Scripture does not teach “salvation is an individual choice”. Before you start gathering the wood to burn me at the stake, please consider these passages. I’ve added some questions after each passage to help focus your thoughts on what each says on the matter.

John 6: 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Question: According to this text, what does it mean when it says, “unless the Father who sent me draws him”?

---

John 6:65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

Question: According to this text, what does it mean when it says, “unless the Father has enabled him”?

---

John 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Question: This text clearly says that it is not “of a human decision”, who then is the one who is making the decision?

---

Heb. 12:2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith

Question: As the author of this blog post I can rightfully say that I’ve created this post. According to this text, who is the ‘creator’ of our faith? Is it us or is it Jesus?

---

Eph. 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Question: according to this text, did we choose to be in Christ or did He choose us to be in Him?

---

2 Thess 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Question: According to this text, who chose us to be saved? Ourselves, or God?

---

Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Question 1: What is the gift of God according to this text?
Question 2: Whose workmanship are we?

---

Rom 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

Question: does faith come from within ourselves according to this text, or does it come from outside of us through the hearing of the word of Christ?

Note, these scriptures make it clear that saving faith does not have its origin within man, nor upon his ‘ability to believe’. Instead, these passages all agree that it is God who chooses us, draws us, enables us, and gives us faith as a gift.

The final nail in the coffin regarding this notion that ‘salvation is an individual choice’ comes from Romans 8:5-8 which states, “5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

If salvation is an ‘individual choice’ then all we would have to do is choose God then we’d be saved. Yet this is the very thing that this passage says that we cannot do. Sinners cannot submit to God’s law nor please God.

An Appeal to Jewish Customs?

Jewish customs are NOT authoritative in forming Christian theology and doctrine. It is important to note that there are NO scriptures that teach that there is an ‘age of accountability’. The author of the article tacitly admits this fact by having to make an ‘illegal’ appeal to extra-Biblical sources such as Jewish customs in order to build his case. I admit that appeals to extra-Biblical sources such as science, archaeology, and history can be very useful in shedding light on the scriptures. However, they can NEVER be used as THE source for Christian doctrine and teaching. The author of this article is appealing to Jewish Customs as a ‘primary source’ for his doctrine of the ‘Age of Accountability’. Therefore, this appeal is to be rejected.

From this point the author takes us into a deep and almost meaningless fog of pure speculation about the actual age of accountability. The end result is that there is no definitive age of accountability. Instead, he teaches that it is a ‘relative age’ that differs from child to child. Note that the author again is not appealing to scripture. This appeal is to reason and ‘personal experience’ based upon the non-Biblical teaching that a person passes the age of accountability once they are capable of ‘making a faith decision’. Let me remind the reader that, scripture teaches that no one, regardless of their age, is capable of making a ‘faith decision’ for God. Instead, faith is a gift from God.

I admit that many dear Christian brothers and sisters believe in the ‘Age of Accountability’. This teaching is very popular in many of our contemporary American churches. However, I am convinced that this belief is not based upon scripture and even contradicts clear Biblical teaching. What say you?

Comments

[Joe Johnson]

I know many – if not most – of us Baptists believe in an “age of accountability.” It’s just another thing that will help in the future merger of “deeds not creeds” Evangelicalism and progressive Mormonism (for the LDS the typical age is 8). For a while, I figured it was just a popular side-assumption and not near official doctrine, much like the fringe Catholic support for a co-redemptix Mary. It’s nowhere in our official confessions. That’s what I thought, until after hearing the Baptist Faith and Message read again, something stuck out. Here’s an excerpt from Article 3 (“Man”):

... By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation....

It’s in there in that last statement: “As soon as they are capable of moral action they become transgressors….” Hmm. Is it possible to have a true doctrine of Original Sin and one that ascribes condemnation to later, individual moral action? I don’t see it. In other words, to avoid the doctrines of infant baptismal regeneration, we’ve applied the Catholic Immaculate Conception doctrine to every birth.

Imagine my terror in having three children 5 and under and not believing that the Scriptures teach either Infant baptismal regeneration or the “age of accountability.” “Faith comes by hearing” – though arguing for an external source of faith – does not bring one to the conclusion that faith comes by external application of the sacraments (or faith and regeneration come by an external decision of someone else presenting a child for a sacrament). Of course that drives me to a hope in a non-normative grace of God applied to those unable to comprehend faith. But I have no Scripture to demand that conclusion, only the knowledge of God’s character and purpose. (Of course that isn't a hope that my kids reach "the age" so they can make a decision - assuming they would, but that God has granted faith even if we cannont recognize it objectively.)

I’ve often thought the unspoken terror that most conservatives have never addressed is the problem of believing in both the beginning of life at conception and condemnation in Original Sin. The question of miscarriage and abortion then leaves us with a very difficult conclusion.

Ps. Not to keep jumping on this issue, but I totally agree with your rejection of an appeal to Jewish Customs. That’s a big reason I can’t subscribe to infant baptism as a new form of circumcision. It’s reading and ascribing Jewish Custom into a Christian practice. It’s very difficult to find support for the “sign of the covenant” and those benefits in baptism unless one interprets the benefits, efficacy and scope of circumcision as necessarily being included into baptism. In my mind it’s one of the areas Covenant theologians read the New Testament in light of the Old. (Ironically, it’s one of those places most Dispensationalists almost read the OT in light of the New.) End soapbox.

[Shaun Giese]

So, you believe that infants that die go to Hell? Which of the Commandments did they break? The logical conclusion is that all aborted babies are doomed to eternal fire.

[Steve Ross]

The point about babies (indeed about the 'age of accountability') brings up some interesting scripture.
Romans explains all about this topic in Rom 1:18-19. Notice how v18 says that God only shows his anger against those who reject Him. A child, though born in sin, has no idea of the Law that condemns him/her, so cannot reject Him (Rom 7:7).
Therefore God had written in the hearts of all that He exists, so that all instictively know His power(Rom 1:20). This means there are no atheists, so if a child dies without knowing of God or the Law, then Christ's rightousness is imputed to that child as a default position. This also holds true for those people who have not heard of Christ, including those who died before Christ (his death and resurrection covered all sin in all time).
However, in the case of an adult, only those who have followed their conscience and lived a life under the knowledge of an 'unknown' God could be reconciled to God. While this would seem to be most unlikely, only God can see the heart, so it's Gods' call at the end.
As the Bible states that baptism works the forgiveness of sins it is an objective truth, therefore babies can be baptized (have their original sin forgiven and be reconciled to God through Christ) and be assured of eternal life without needing to 'make a decision' (Titus 3: 5-7).

Thanks for the blog, Chris. Keeps me on my toes!
Steve.

[Steve]

When Paul wrote Rom. 3:23, he didn't qualify what people have sinned and how has not yet sinned. To say that sin is an action is a misunderstanding of our sinful nature. Like David, we can all claim that we are sinful from conception (Ps. 51:5).

Do we sin because we are sinners or are we sinners because we sin?

[Joe Johnson]

Shaun: I noted the difficulty of an absolute exclusivist position in speaking of Original Sin as applied to the unborn (and pre-rational). It's a painful possibility of the doctrine. I couldn't tell you what I believe, only that I'd love to believe in an "age of accountability" doctrine. In honesty, I can't defend that position biblically. My summation is that we can point out what is known: the normative situation provoked by the doctrine of Original Sin is that those who do not respond to the Gospel are condemned (John 3:18). However, we must also state that these are ultimately issues in the hand of God. He has earned the right to judge such things. I can hope for “age of accountability” but I cannot argue from it in precise Scripture, only in the application of the principles of God’s goodness, mercy and desire to save the lost. In other words, I can say what is normative and follows the extent of the doctrine of Original Sin. I cannot say that the normative is absolute. I honestly hope it is not.

---

I'm a bit perplexed by Steve's comments. I assume he doesn't believe that Original Sin is much more than a disposition towards sin - that it sets us up to be sinners, but we are not actually sinners until we knowingly transgress the Law.

That brings up a few issues: Genesis 20 speaks to the possibility of being culpable of sin without knowing the definition of sin. But the big, big issue is that this turns the Gospel into the message purely of condemnation where there was no condemnation.

Believing that until Christ came all were justified in their ignorance transforms Christ into the Law; His appearance affects condemnation where there was none. If the goal of God was to save the lost, it sure would have made a lot more sense to wait until the last day and send Christ then - before the word could get out.

Missionary work is not the addition of the lost, but rather the removal of the saved. If a person is justified in their ignorance, they can only lose their justification by hearing the Gospel (there's nothing more to gain, except perhaps some ethics).

As for God seeing the heart – that’s what I most fear (Gen 6:5, 34:3, 42:28; Ex 7:13; Lev 19:17; Num 15:39; Deut 1:28, 4:9, 5:29, 8:14, 17:17, 28:65…etc.) Of course the classics: “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it” (Jer 17:9) and Jesus’ summary of the integrity of all people: “But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.” (John 2:25). I hope we’re judged on something more trustworthy than our own integrity and hearts.

[Steve]

Joe,

My point is that sin is more than just want we do, it is part of who we are.

Being a sinner is part of being human. It is both our actions and our condition.

If a Chrisitan parent tells their child (say 3 years old) that the child's action was sinful (lying) and that the child should repent to God and the parent, did the parent end the child's age of accountability since the child now knows their action is sinful? At 18 months old, my first child told a lie to his grandmother and blamed the dog. Since we had not taught him to lie, than what is the cause of this sinful action by my son?

[Joe Johnson]

Oops Steve - a point of clarification. I meant to address my comments to Steve [Ross]. Sorry for the ambiguity. That will probably make a bit more sense. I do stupid things sometimes because I'm stupid... ha!

Your post made perfect sense and I completely come down on the side that we sin because we're sinners: our nature mamifests itself in our actions.... Fortunately, not only am I a sinner, I'm simultaneously justified.

[Steve Ross]

Joe,
I'm well aware that we are born sinners and are dead in our transgretions. However, we only know that we're dead because the Law was brought to our attention to point out our guilt.(Romans 7:7)
I'm not saying we don't sin by our very nature, we just don't know that we sin without having the Law point it out. (Romans 7:9)
And we don't stop sinning even after Christ (through the Holy Spirit) comes to justify us. Our sanctification is an ongoing process until we die, and while we may get 'better'(due soley to the Spirit)we will never be perfect and will always need Christs' imputed rightousness to allow us to be judged not guilty.

Steve.

[Steve Ross]

Hi,
For those who would like more info on infant faith, try this link:

http://www.hope-aurora.org/pages/InfantFaith

Regards,
Steve Ross

[Frank Marron]

Steves's comment that Christian may bet "better" reminded me of a paper I wrote regarding the myth of progressive sanctification. Believers actually never improve,even though externally they may appeaar to. Their Old Adam hearts are as eveil as always and their motivations hidden from sight. Only the New Creation within each believer is perfect in thought, word, and deed, as commanded by God.

Frank Marron

[Samuel Crees]

In the article; Age of Accountability; Chris Rosebrough, is right.
There is no such age in the Bible implied or otherwise. We have two very strong places in scripture from Christ himself that tells all, if people will but read them as they are. First; and far most, Jesus said , "Mar 10:13-16 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. (14) But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. (15) Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. (16) And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.
Luk 9:47-48 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, (48) And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.
1Co 13:10-13 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. (11) 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. (12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (13) And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
There are more but to set one point above all else; WE all have the orginal sin of Adam, true or false? If true, and the verse that says we come forth speaking lies, rings true to babys. So as a human grows so does it mind, its abilities and its comensurate for sin. So Christ sees each mind and heart and knows what it is able to comprehend. For Christ loves the 'simple'; Why? For they have no mind of their own, for it never developed as ours did, and so he "Loves/Understands" their heart to be more pure than our own. The most evil thing anyone can do is believe in the age of accountability since it totally sends all of those with little or no mental capacity to hell, while Christ gives them head position in heaven above all others.

[David H. Grisham]

Jesus said that He did not come to destroy the law but to FULFILL it. Jesus fulfilled all the laws of the sacrifice. No more sacrifices need be made. His blood covers all the blood sacrifices for the remission of sin. An argument could be made that Jesus fulfilled the law of sacrifice for newborns (an example of this is found in Luke Chapter 2) and thus all babies are covered under HIS sacrifice since under the law they could not make sacrifice for themselves. Furthermore, there is no provision in the laws of sacrifice for making atonements for the unborn so we might assume none was needed thus indicating that aborted babies are also covered by Christ and His mercy. Just a thought.

[Lisa]

Possibly an age of accountability or an age God considers an age of some amount of understanding. Whole verse not typed, just a clip of the verse.

2 Chr 25:5 registered them from 20 and above
Le 27:3-4 evaluation of male or female from 20 to 60
Le 27:5 evaluation of male or female from 5 to 20
Nu 1:3 20 and above, number by divisions
Nu 1:18 declared ancestry from 20 and above
Nu 1:20 children of Reuben from 20 and above
Nu 1:22 " Shimon "
Nu 1:24 " Gad "
Nu 1:26 " Yehudah "
Nu 1:28 " Yissaskar "
Nu 1:30 " Zebulun "
Nu 1:32 " Yoseph "
Nu 1:34 " Menashsheh "
Nu 1:36 " Binyamin "
Nu 1:38 " Dan "
Nu 1:40 " Asher "
Nu 1:42 " Naphtali "
Nu 1:45 all those registered 20 and above
De 1:39 your children no knowledge of good and evil, they are going in there, (the ones that got to go into the land were the ones who were 20 and under at the time God declared that they could not go into the land. They wandered for 40 years, all those 20 and above died, all those that were 20 and under lived and went into the land forty years later.)
Nu 14:29 fall in wilderness 20 years and above
Nu 14:31 your little ones, I shall bring in
The whole chapter of Numbers 14, talks about the "why's"
2 Chr 34:3 (Josiah) 12th year of reign (20 years old) began cleansing high places and idols (started seeking at 16)

This is what the Scriptures say. This is the only clue we have as to when God may consider someone to be at an "age of accountability" or have an ability to properly reason and make a better choice.

Scientifically speaking, the mind does not stop developing until sometime between 21 and 25. Anyone who is older than 30 knows that the way we thought before we were 21 or so is quite a bit different than the way we are thinking now. Experience and a certain amount of hormone leveling and maturing has taught our minds, so that we, more of the time can make better decisions and choices.