Recently, the Christian Standard ran a series of articles considering the difficulties posed by the doctrine of the “age of accountability.”
The first article, by Teresa Welch, defines three related problems —
- Problem One: Lack of a New Testament Example
- Problem Two: Appropriate Age for Childhood Baptism
- Problem Three: The “Age of Accountability”
Of course, those who argue for infant baptism would argue that the household baptisms recorded in Acts reflect the baptism of infants, but this is hardly indisputable. But for those who, like the Restoration Movement churches, reject original sin in the Augustinian sense (infants must be baptized to gain forgiveness from Adam’s sin), it seems necessary to teach an “age of accountability” at which a child becomes sufficiently responsible for his or her own conduct that he is lost until he comes to faith and baptism.
Of course, the challenge presented by the “age of accountability” doctrine is that the scriptures, especially the New Testament, say very little on the subject. And this leaves us pondering the age at which a child should be baptized. When is a child old enough to be guilty of sin (and therefore damned) so that the child can be saved by coming to faith and being baptized?
And this is no mere abstraction. What do you say to a parent whose 12-year old daughter died in a car wreck but hadn’t been baptized? What if the girl had been raised in the church, had a devout faith, and yet her parents wanted her to wait to be baptized to be sure she fully understood the nature of the commitment? What if she was 15 or 18?
Of course, we could push our children to be baptized when they’re 8 or 9, but most parents consider that too young.
In Part II of the article by Welch (published in the August 15, 2010 issue and net yet available on their web site), Welch argues that we should consider conversion a process and not a moment. Therefore, rather than pushing for a baptism, we should work with children to provide “love, nurture, encouragement, and education.” Therefore, rather than quizzing the child on the steps of salvation, we should provide “formal education” in the form of classes for children to provide “a solid education base for conversations about baptism and discipleship.” Parents would share their own faith journeys with the children in the class.
There was no need to question whether he was accountable, for they knew their son had been in the process of making this commitment [for the last two years]. With his baptism, Nathan stepped into a new process, that of lifelong discipleship, but it was a step placed on a solid foundation.
Now, I totally agree with this approach. Yes, rather than a summer camp conversion, it’s great if the child’s commitment can be based on a solid base of instruction and testimony — so that the child is not only saved but included in the community. If the pressure of the oh-so-uncertain age of accountability is removed, the church can take the time necessary to build a solid foundation, rather than pushing for a quick decision that may not really be a commitment.
However, as much as I agree with the approach, this approach hardly solves the underlying problem: what if the child were to die before being baptized? Would she be saved even if she is 13 or 14? Surely there is some age at which the child is accountable for obedience to the command to be baptized!
The second article is by John Mark Hicks. (A slightly expanded version of the article can be found here.) Hicks argues that children raised in the church always have faith in Jesus and therefore are always saved. They don’t pass from safe to lost to saved.
Perhaps if we thought our children lived in communion with God through faith, we would not rush them to the water as soon as they become aware of some distinctions about good and evil. Perhaps if we thought our children were saved by God’s grace through faith, we could patiently wait for the moment when they are 14 or 16 or even 18 for them to declare their discipleship and take up the mission of Jesus.
I am not suggesting a particular age for baptism. I do not know what that should be. Every person must decide for himself. What I am suggesting is that it is misguided to pressure our children into baptism in order to soothe our own worries and fears about their salvation.
Now, Hicks’ argument will sound disturbingly Baptist to many, because he argues a child may be saved by faith without baptism while growing sufficiently in maturity to make the commitment baptism involves.
A third article by Jeff Faull responds to Hicks. He quotes prominent independent Christian Church scholar Jack Cottrell —
I like Jack Cottrell’s suggestion that Romans 7:9 presents a good biblical description of the “age of accountability”: “I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died” (New American Standard Bible).
According to Cottrell, accountability comes when a child can “connect the law to God and connect disobedience with eternal penalty.” He concedes that discerning when that occurs is not always easy and requires careful consideration.
Faull then concludes,
I certainly do not question Hicks’s motives or credentials, but I fear his approach to this subject could have several unintended consequences and could inadvertently undermine several important practical realities.
First, it replaces the stated purposes of baptism found throughout the New Testament (to put on Christ, to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, to die to sin, to remit sins, to call on the name of the Lord, etc.). Thus, it becomes a slippery slope in an arena that is already too often marginalized.
Second, it could minimize the emphasis on child evangelism. If the often-quoted statistics are true—that 80 percent of believers come to Christ before age 18—we would do well to proceed with caution in this arena.
Finally it even runs the risk of not letting God be God. We must be content to teach children the gospel faithfully and responsibly, and let God sort out the particulars for each individual.
Now, we see in these articles a legitimate, understandable wrestling with a very difficult issue — and an issue where the Bible gives precious little guidance. Welch appropriately argues that our anxiety to baptize children often fails to produce the kind of commitment Christianity actually entails. If baptism is taught as a get-out-of-hell card rather than a commitment to a Savior we have fallen in love with, we are building on a very questionable foundation — and yet many a child has been scared into the baptistry. We can do better.
Hicks argues that it makes no sense to imagine that a child has to be damned in order to become saved. If baptism is only proper once a child is accountable, then baptism is only for the lost — meaning our children must experience a time, however brief, of damnation just to be saved. But Hicks certainly cuts against conventional Restoration Movement thought that baptism is always the moment of salvation.
Faull is much more in the mainstream, and yet his arguments present their own problems. First, he insists that baptism has to be the moment we transition from lost to saved, whereas Hicks gives the example of Jesus, who was saved before, during, and after baptism. Which is the better model for a child of faith?
Faull argues that Hicks’ argument would de-emphasize “child evangelism,” but Hicks is only speaking of children raised in the church. And I’d agree with Welch and Hicks that our emphasis on child evangelism is often misplaced, putting pressure on a child comparable to what we see in a revival meeting — pressure that is unfair for the immature (and often for the mature).
Finally, Faull insists that it’s God’s problem, and we should let God be God. And all I can say is: “Oh, please! Let’s do be serious!” Every parent in the church has to sort this out, and we aren’t doing a very good job of it. We in the Churches of Christ are losing members because we aren’t converting enough from among the lost to replace those of our own children who are leaving God’s church. Whatever kind of baptismal teaching we’re doing in the youth and teen programs is producing a lot of kids who leave the church (not just the Churches of Christ).
In all seriousness, make a list of all the children who’ve graduated from your high school program in the last 10 years. Now determine how many are faithful Christians somewhere. I dare say that in most churches, no more than 2 out of 3 are active Christians — even after you take into account those who’ve left and come back after marrying and having children.
And just how good a job are we doing if our kids routinely abandon the church for 5 to 10 years after high school? Just how well are our baptismal practices working?
Therefore, the status quo is clearly not good enough. Whether it’s a matter of practice or doctrine, something is deeply inadequate about how we teach our children about Jesus. The one position I have no patience with is the status quo.
Please send this to the Christian Standard. It is excellent and I can't imagine that they wouldn't publish it.
I had an intereseting conversation with a brother last evening. He is not affiliated with the churches of Christ, but holds to most of the same convictions (incl. baptism) and he works among Roman Catholics. He became father again this year and at the end of July they are having a blessing-ceremony for the son. This, he said, rose several interesting questions and gave opportunity to good conversations.
Now – don't be shocked – he approached a Roman Catholic priest to perform the blessing according to the Bycantine Rite. The priest is from the Ucraine and grew up in this tradition. What is interesting about this: There are three different blessing ceremonies in the liturgicakl books for infants:
a) One on the day of birth
b) one for the name-giving on the eighth day
c) one one the fourtieth day (when the mother was declared clean after the Mosaic Law)
The last blessing is also for officially taking the child into the church and to start the baptismal preparations (the child is viewed as a catechumen from that day on).
What was surprising to my friend (and to me also): The liturgical texts only speak of believers' baptism! Baptism of infants seemed to have crept in through the influence of the Western church. So, although mostly they baptize infants, it does not fit their liturgical formulas.
Now, what is the connection to the article above?
a) The Eastern Orthodox churches reject the teaching of inherited guilt (i.e. the Augustian understanding of the original sin).
b) They also believe in an "age of accountability"
c) They treat conversion also as a process that starts with the Christian education.
Maybe it would be worth to have a look at their insights when dealing with this quite difficult question.
Alexander
If there is an age of accountability, then prior to that age one is not accountable — and therefore does not need to be saved from any consequences.
But I think the term "age of accountability" creates a mistaken impression, that there is a point in time where one goes from not accountable to accountable. I don't think it's a point in time, but rather a continuum. We go through a maturing process by degrees. Our understanding of sin and atonement grows, and our characters mature to a point where we can make a lifelong commitment based on that understanding. It's not a point in time, but a matter of degree.
Only God knows the ultimate answer to this question. None of us can say definitively what God will do with a 13 year old, or an 18 year old, who has not yet become a disciple and has not been baptized. But I know God is merciful.
Has the teen rejected the opportunity to become a disciple? Has he/she decided not to be baptized? Is he/she in rebellion against the Word of God? Or is the teen merely a weak sinner (Rom 7) like the rest of us? We may be pretty certain of the answer in some cases, but often we just don't know. And I don't see any way out of that. We just can't know some things.
Some 20 years ago I attended a meeting in Nashville, TN in which a Rabbi, a rep of Islam, and Rubel Shelly representing Christianity gave talks defending their beliefs. One thing that has stayed with me is the Rabbi's statement that in Christianity, children have to become lost before they can become saved, but in Judaism, the child is never considered lost, just growing and developing his faith as he reaches adulthood. I tend to agree with John Mark.
Certainly, there is some "age of accountability." But as Alan writes, it is unknowable. Even in retrospect, I'm not sure I could identify the time or even the general period when I truly became fully accountable. I would have to guess.
And there are some who would argue that even now, I don't always behave as if I'm fully accountable.
But I believe a parent's pre-occupation with their child's salvation stems from our legalistic view of salvation.
If we faithfully teach God's grace and forgiveness, which flows to us thru the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, then, when our children get it, they will ask, like the Jews at Pentecost — what must I do?
Indoctrination of children does not equate to faith — which is a distinct possibility, when considering Christian education of our youth. And, I think most Christian education below college age has much more to do with indoctrination than with thoughtful education.
If faith in Jesus and reliance on God is as powerful as we say we believe it is, we would have more confidence in it's message. We would not be afraid to have our children deal with opposing perspectives.
The question of "age of accountability" is certainly relevant — it's just completely unknowable.
So, try to do what's right, and let God take care of the rest.
Jay,
It seems interesting to me that when we consider these things we act as if there is no biblical precedent for an age at which a person becomes accountable to God. And I sincerely doubt that I am the only one to have considered the following two items. So perhaps you can tell me why:
1) we seem to not consider the issue of the age at which God held the people of Israel accountable in the wilderness? (see Numbers 14:29 & 32:11, and also Exodus 30:14 and Leviticus 27:3 and Numbers 1:3)
2) we also seem to ignore the teachings about counting the cost in Matthew 10 and Luke 14? Even secular laws do not recognize persons under a certain age to be accountable for contractual obligations they may not understand because they are not yet old enough to consider the consequences of their actions. Is making a commitment into eternity to Jesus any less serious a consideration than whether we can hold someone accountable for a credit card or a marriage proposal? If we would hesitate at allowing an 8 year old to marry, what makes us think a commitment to Jesus is less important? Has counting the cost really become such a small concern that we can ignore it altogether?
After all, are we rushing to the baptistry for their sake? or because of our own fears and lack of trust for Paul's teachings in 1st Corinthians 7:14?
What are we teaching about following Jesus? Does it matter at all if we have any idea what we are dying to or being raised to?
What can you tell me?
Blessings,
Grizz
2 out of 3 as active Christians?
I would be thrilled if 2 out of 3 were still active Christians. My experience is that we are much closer to 2 out of 10 being active Christians.
I began wrestling with some of these issues earlier this year, when I reviewed "Baptism: Three Views" for Englewood Review of Books.
It was troubling to have to admit that I didn't go into that book knowing the difference between believer's baptism and convert's baptism – nor did I realize beforehand which one was by far the more prevalent practice in Acts.
I don't see how Faull can say that Hicks' view rejects the Scriptural purposes of baptism: JM is specifically talking about "putting on Christ!" And NT baptism is for bringing alien sinners into the commonwealth of God – I am increasingly troubled with the idea that our youth must fall away before belonging to Him.
I think this issue falls into the cracks between a conservative and a progressive view of the kingdom of God. The conservative view believes we must always do just what is recorded for our imitation, believing that there are no unresolved issues of importance. How to handle 2nd/3rd (etc) generation Christians who have never not known and loved Jesus is just such an issue, which a progressive view of the kingdom is designed to address. Such a view expects there to be unresolved issues, because there were huge issues (Gentile evangelism and fellowship, for one) that the early church did not receive a direct "Thus saith the Lord" on, and thus had to improvise a response. A progressive view does not expect there to be a BCV answer to every single matter, but rather that Scripture provides the authoritative framework around which the body can grow as it needs to grow in every unique place.
Grizz, I think those OT references do illustrate the point that there is a time when children are not accountable, and a time when they become accountable. I'm not sure we can definitively say that time is 20 years old for every individual. That's how law works, but we are not under law. So I don't think it's wrong to baptize a person under 20 years of age.
We really seem to want a law on this. Give me a rule, an algorithm I can plug my child into, which will give me the answer. Take my judgment out of the equation. But that's not how God has set things up. Yes, I'm uncertain and my judgment may be wrong. But God is merciful — both toward me and toward my children. He will decide, and I trust his mercy.
It occurred to me the other day that a blind Methodist woman may have had more influence on Church of Christ doctrine than any other single person during the tenure of our tradition. It is the idea of perfect submission that colors much of our thinking, and that goes hand in hand with our thesis of instant conversion.
We summarily dismiss paedobaptism by necessarily inferring there were no young children in the baptized households mentioned in the New Testament. That required us to construct the "age of accountability," which gives our pentangular peg the illusion of fitting into the round hole of scriptural concatenation.
My question is this: If we compress salvation into the instant of immersion, insisting on the access code of belief, repentance and confession in that order … and of course in short order since once belief happens the clock is ticking, accountabilitywise, then how do we dare not baptize our children as early as they first understand not to do something (anything) because it is wrong?
The answer, I believe, is that parents know their young children could easily be impressed to do this at around age five and could readily learn to recite the reasons why by then. But most of us would admit that at five a child would be doing it, not by personal realization, but to please the parent. What I'm wondering is, why can we not admit that a ten-year old, or a twelve-year old, or maybe even a fourteen-year old still makes most decisions based on pleasing his parents. So then to be sure they are being baptized for the "right" reason, shouldn't we insist baptism not occur until the mid-teen years when they are clearly independent in their thinking and really truly lost?
Therein lies the problem with Sudoku salvation. Reducing spiritual correctness to a select set of words and requiring perfection of placement and order (and timing) renders a methodology far more difficult than keeping the old law. At least the children of Israel didn't have to worry about inferences (which is a theologically-inflated word for "guessing").
I love Fanny Crosby's hymns. But I think we would be better servants if we'd sing about our perfect submission a little less and start singing "Tell Me the Story of Jesus" more often. We should strive for perfection, yes, but we should also concede that it isn't possible for any of us, no not one of us. Then perhaps we could be genuinely thankful that perfection isn't necessary with a merciful God who can discern our hearts and forgive us for our missteps … even those of us whose chief sin is thinking we are the only ones who have it all figured out perfectly.
Now there's someone with a vocabulary.
To me, its not an age, its a mental position. No one can be accountable if they can't understand or until they can understand.
How old for a child or a 60 year old man mentally challenged that cannot understand right from wrong. What age would that child or man be accountable.
How about Nations of people or individuals that never heard about Jesus and worshipped God in many different ways from the Bible or like we do.
When were or are they accountable?
Please don't give me the old answer that the word was being taught or preached here on earth somewhere and it was their responsibility to travel to whereever it was being preached, listen and obey or they were lost.
Amen.
Can you imagine the excruciating pressure our churches would inflict on every single child if we had a precise "age of accountability?"
I think we have a bigger problem than trying to exact an "age of accountability". Perhaps I am wrong, but we use "baptism" and "salvation" almost interchangeably don't we? Not all baptisms result in a disciple of Jesus. I think we should be more careful to make sure we don't lead people to trust baptism instead of Jesus. I don't think we can deny that many of us are doing that exact thing.
Jay has done an excellent and completely biblical job of making clear that salvation is by faith in Christ. Christ's work and merit alone is sufficient to bring us to God on good terms. We must trust only him and and not Him plus anything else.
God was satisfied with Jesus' offering of himself. No human effort, no ritual, no religious activity, is efficacious. Only when our faith is centered on Christ and depending on Him alone are we candidates for water baptism. When Phillip told the Ethiopian "If you believe with all your heart you may…(be baptized)" he was not talking about believing in baptism, but rather believing in the Christ he had just told him about from the prophet Isaiah.
Royce
It concerns me, too, that we have emphasized baptism to the neglect of becoming like Christ. Like several writers above, I trust God. And I take Jesus at His word, in a situation where His closest friends wanted Him to outline a hierarchy among believers:
Are we trying to create a hierarchy among believers? "Those who are baptized for remission of sins are greater than those who are baptized in gratitude for Christ's sacrifice … are greater than those who are baptized as infants … are greater than those who are not baptized at all, because – after all – they're not really believers or saved or in the kingdom of heaven to begin with."
Really? Is that how God sees it?
This is a rather difficult issue. My 7-year old son has faith in Jesus Christ. He has an understanding that Jesus is the Son of God and that Christ died in his place and took the punishment for his sins. He could be baptized as a believer at this moment.
However, I'm not sure that he's ready. It seems that baptism is not simply for believers; it's for repentant believers.
When my son comes to the point that he wants to devote his life to following Jesus Christ as Lord–when he comes to the point that his intellectual faith leads him to heart-felt repentance–he will be ready for baptism.
I'm looking forward to that day.
Alexander,
I will definitely be looking at Orthodox thought — because you're right that they reject original sin and yet practice infant baptism. They Orthodox Churches often have a perspective we never consider because, frankly, our views are often either borrowed from Catholicism or defined by our opposition to Catholicism. Therefore, we sometimes fail to see possibilities other than Catholic and anti-Catholic.
Exd 30:14 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.
Exd 30:15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when [they] give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.
seems those under the age of twenty, were not held responsiable, or accountable
Another example:
The Hutterites, an Anabaptist group, that originated in Austria and now numbers about 50.000 souls in Canada and parts of the US (www.hutterites.org) also baptize traditionally around the age of 20 years.
A good friend of mine, Tony Waldner from the Forest-River-Colony in ND said that although they baptize rather late, still – in the course of almost 500 years – the church has more unbelieving than believing members (although all adults are baptized).
So, defining it with a certain age does not really help, because then this given age becomes as much a tradition as is the age of 14 for confirmation among Lutherans and Catholics. It becomes a rite of passage.
Alexander
Terry,
I consider your choice a wise one. Some might be frightened by it, but when your son is ready, you will not stand in his way. A parent's instincts are usually based on something, even if we cannot place our fingers on what that something is.
Abasnar,
Using a specific age has never been my contention. Questioning the extreme response of neglecting what Jesus taught about counting the cost – a form of accountability actually – is my intention.
Is the candidate for immersion into Christ, forfeiting one's own life to be His completely, something we want to encourage when a person of whatever age is unable to make an accounting for his or her actions?
How cheap is a life? That is the real question. Jesus turned people away when He knew they were not ready. He did not chase them off. He made them consider the cost. He gave them time to consider their actions – to see whether they would follow through no matter what came next. If He were as cavalier about making this particular choice as we have become, He would have sought to explain the justification to His close disciples. He did that a lot, you know. But Jesus was not as cavalier – not cavalier about it at all.
We do not encourage people to follow Jesus because it makes us feel better, or sleep easier at night. We encourage people to follow Jesus because THEY know it is worth the cost – no matter what comes next. Any other motive is not based on faith. Any other motive is based on fantasy.
Fantasy does not save. Until the person is ready to trust Jesus with their life, they simply are not making a faith-based decision. And this is accountability for the teacher. Accountability does not stop at baptism … no matter how much we might fool ourselves into thinking it is for their own good and they might or probably will or hopefully will grow into the faith part. That is the fantasy of trusting the action instead of trusting the One who fills the action with meaning. Every teacher should know the difference.
Blessings,
Grizz
When a person is ready to be baptized, you can't talk them out of it. If the teacher is more urgent than the learner, the learner is not yet ready, IMO.
Alexander said;
" the church has more unbelieving than believing members (although all adults are baptized"
I don't believe anyone here is saying people automatically become believers at the age of 20 yrs.
You just become responsible for what you believe and do, at that age, if not then, when?
I believe as adults, we are held responsible for the actions of our children, by law, and by God.
Laymond,
I agree that most often, someone 20 years old is responsible for themselves. But I also know that many are responsible earlier, and I know some I could argue were not responsible until later.
Only God know when someone reaches that point.
So if you have an unbelieving teenager then as an adult you will be held responsible? What does "being held responsible" look like? The law holds juveniles responsible for their actions. Eighteen yrs. and older is considered an adult (16 in some cases I think.)
I agree with David, God knows a spiritually responsible heart.
David, I believe this is what Jesus is speaking of here, little children and those unprepared to comprehend.
Mat 5:3 Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Nancy, I was actually talking about the "law of Moses" which was given him by God.
When, praytell, were we under the law of Moses?
This whole "age of accountability" business has always troubled me, mainly because of the lack of Scriptural example. It seems that we in the Churches of Christ are very fond of pulling out certain Scriptures, cobbling them together, and then saying, "Look, this is how you ought to be saved", or "this is how you ought to worship" or whatever else is the teaching of the time.
I have an 11-year-old son with autism, and although he's fascinated with baptisms, and we've told him that someone gets baptized when they decide to let God be in charge of their life and live the way He wants them to live, in no way would I consider him ready for baptism. If he were to be asked, do you believe that Jesus is the Christ and are you ready to make him Lord of your life, he would probably say, "Yeah," but have no idea of what he was saying "yeah" to.
I cannot see Jesus as condemming someone without the capability of understanding salvation and sin down into hell. But at the same time, there is nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that those without the capability of understanding will go to heaven.
Tina,
Suffer little children to come unto me for such is the kingdom of heaven.
Children are innocent and will go to heaven because they cannot understand.
Same with those mentally incompetent regardless of age.
Laymond,
Several have mentioned the Law's rules on this. I'll be getting to that question in a few posts, because I agree that it's important.
Nick asked, "When, praytell, were we under the law of Moses?"
Nick , if you are talking about "we" as you and me, then it might be questionable, but if you use "we" as the human race, for a pretty long time.
Laymond, I was quoting you, so my first question is how were you using it?
Second, what evidence can you present to show that anyone besides Israel and those foreigners who chose to dwell with Israel were participants in the Mosaic covenant?
Tina, the sermon on the mount is considered by many as the best sermon ever preached.
Mat 5:2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
Mat 5:3 Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
It seems to me that Mat. 5:3 must have been pretty important on Jesus agenda since it was the first thing that came from his mouth in that sermon.
I have no doubt as to who Jesus was speaking about when he said "the poor in spirit" I don't believe you need to worry about your son's future.
Dear Nick
I am not sure whether I understand Laymond and/or you correctly, but what I think is prettey simple:
Christ is the end of the Law (Ro 10:4), but the Greek word for end has not the meaning of doing away with the Law, but of fulfilling, making complete the Law (telos – which has the idea of reaching a goal.) And this fits to our Lord's own words concerning the Law in Mt 5:17-20.
This leads us to reread the Law of Moses in the light of its fulfillment/completion in Christ. And that's why Laymond's pointing to the Law in order to find principles that help us understand the question at hand, is correct. Because what did the Early NT church do whenever a question arose? They took their Bibles (which was basically just the OT in the beginning) and they studied it in the light of Christ. That's what the Apostles did in Acts 15 in order to answer the question of circumcision, that's what Paul did in all his letters: He almost exclusively makes his points from the Law (or the OT)! But he reads and understands the Law in Christ.
So back to your question: Are we participants of the Mosaic covenant? Are we under the Law? By no means. We are under the New covenant which ist the fulfillment and completion of the old covenant and the Law. But this does make the Law very important for us, not the Law according to the letter, but according to the Spirit.
So looking back at this age of 20 in the Law of Moses gives us a hint, a way to look at this issue of accountability. This does not mean, that we should draw a line in the sand; but – and take this into consideration, too – it shows God's grace and log-suffering with us. I personally would have drawn a line (if I were asked) at a much younger age (6 or 7 years, maybe), but God was gracious up to the age of 20.
I suppose there might be more to find in these widley neglected texts of the old covenant that can serve as a help to understand God's perspective.
Alexander
Thanks Alexander, That pretty much says it all. I was in the process of writing an answer to Nick when my computer decided to drop the Internet completely, the technician, who arrived promptly, said I needed larger cable all through the house, since I have four televisions, and two computers running on it , so that is what we did. Working so far. 🙂
Although we no longer live by the laws given Moses, we still are accountable to the laws of God. and the Old Testament holds many answers to questions that arise even today.
So when God destroyed the earth by flood, He saved Noah and his family and all the children under the age of accountability, right?
Ted are you saying that all people who were killed by the flood, are going to "HELL"
That is a pretty good question for Jay, or anyone else was there any promise of heaven before the flood.?
Was there any covenant at all between God and man?
There was the Adamic covenant.
Nancy, what is the Adamic covenant?
Google covenant theology or Adamic covenant. The other covenants are the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and the New Covenant.
Nancy, you seem to know more about Calvinism than I do, so I thought I would ask you.
Laymond, I may know more about a lot of things than you do but in this case you asked a question about covenants and because I knew the answer, I unfortunately responded to your question. There is a lot of information available about covenant theology (and systematic theology and dispensational theology, etc.) I'm sure if you are motivated enough to learn more, you'll be able to find something that will satisfy.
Laymond – I was not at all ascribing Hell to anyone. THE THRONE IS ALREADY OCCUPIED!! I was simply reciting scripture where God did not seem to have any regard for "innocent children".
I recently heard a Kay Arthur follower describing the "rapture". The dead in Christ will rise and then all believers and children under the age of 12 will be taken up with him in the clouds.
All I'm saying is that this "age of accountability" has taken on a life of it's own and become a doctrine for many.
We simply don't know.
Laymond,
Obviously God held the pre-Flood people to a standard. They failed to meet the standard and so they were destroyed. But I've never pursued the question.
Same with a Tornado or any natural desaster today, even a car wreck, innocent children die.
That's when we depend on Gods grace.
GRACE, something we have not taught or learned about for many years in most of the churches of Christ so we are basically ignorant of it and don't consider it.
Thank God that is changing!
In addition to the covenants Nancy mentioned there is the eternal covenant of redemption that many covenant theology folks believe is implied in scripture. I think the understanding is that in eternity past God the Father decreed to save some i.e. the elect (let's not get into infra vs supra lapsarian view here); God the Son covenanted to provide the atonement for them and God the Holy spirit covenanted to apply the atonement to them. Some think (rightly I believe) this is more theological than biblical. Many in the CofC think theology is a dirty word but think it is great to be biblical b/c they view themselves as biblical and uninfluenced by those theological types.
As to the age of accountability I have little to add to add. It is a concept that may have some/some support in the bible, but we have made quite a theology out of it. Not bad considering how anti theological we think we are.
As to the comments about those that perished in the flood, the scriptures seem to suggest that the thoughts of their hearts were only evil continually. Could that apply to those under the age or 20 or 12 or younger? How old does one have to be to begin to think and behave in a selfish or evil manner. For a person with a corrupt nature all it really takes it time and maturation in order to express itself. For one with a pure nature I don't think it would ever find expression – but that is theology.
Peace,
Randall
The Old Testament God seemed to have no qualms about killing whole nations/cities/worlds of children no matter how small, just to teach one man, or man, the cost of his actions. The flood, Sodom and Gomorrah
(Egyptian Pharaoh )
While the Lord of the New Testament placed great value on the little children, Yet they are claimed by many to be one and the same.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Every man has to die somehoe and sometime. This is true for the guilty and the innocent. If a naturals desaster wipes out a whole city, this earth-quake or flood makes no difference and does not consider any "age of accountabilty".
In a broad sense (and maybe more often than we realize in a very direct sense) such destasters are a judgment of God. THey are in part an aspect of the curse under which we all live; but they can be as well an action where God puts an end to a sinful society or even only a person. While it is (probably) wrong or at least we have to admit that we don't know to say the earth-quake in Haiti came because of the Voodoo cult, we cannot say it just happened by arbitrary chance as if God had no control over this world. Our Lord said concerning some desasters:
Note, that he does not say it was ajudgment because of their sins, but still He draws the conclusion that we must repent in order to avoid the same destiny. This means, such catastrophes are (at least) as sign or a type of God's wrath.
What does that mean to the "age of accountability"? It means it has nothing to do with the physical death, but with our standing before God, Many true and faithful Christians were killed in Haiti. Maybe it was a judgment of God (at least it was a sign of such), but still they are not condemned only because they were killed with the others. None of us will escape the physical death, unless the Lord returns in our life time. Our physical death is God's ultimate judgment of our old and fallen nature, which – spiritually – has already died with Christ in baptism, but still has to be destroyed and transformed to a glorified and incorruptible body like Christ's. We don't fear death anymore because of our glorious hope, but death is still a reality we have to live with. And it does not matter at all how we die as long as we die in the Lord.
So whoever is innocent/or forgiven has nothing to fear from the Lord. Why we talk about the "age of accountabilty" is not physical death but our standing before the throne of God.
Alexander