Age of accountability?

[Helen]

I understand the points that have been made.

First of all, I am not taking bits of Bible to try to fit "my point of view." It's the other way around. I have spent years reading the Bible cover to cover a number of times and praying for wisdom in discernment. My point of view is based on what the Bible is saying.

Now, to respond to a few points that were brought up.

There is a difference between a crime being committed and reparations needed and the accountability for that crime. There is kind of a fine difference here. The picture I have used before to try to explain it is the two year old shopping with Mom. Mommy puts lovely things in the basket and the nice man at the checkout puts them in bags for her. Toddler doesn't need a bag for his candy that he decided he wanted so he puts it in his pocket.

He has no concept of paying for it.

But he is guilty of shoplifting and the stolen candy must be paid for. When Mommy finds it, if she is honest, she will go back and pay for it. The toddler is guilty, but not accountable. However then Mommy must explain about paying for things. And, as a mommy, I know that toddlers don't always understand the first time you tell them. Some things just don't make sense to their immature minds. So the 'shoplifting' may happen a couple of times more before the lesson is finally accepted (though not always understood even yet!). Each time, Mommy pays.

Children are guilty of sin in thought, word, and deed. But Paul is very clear in Romans that this sin is dead -- and that means it does not have the power to separate the child from God -- because the law has not been known by the child. Nevertheless the sin must be atoned for, and that is what Jesus did on the cross. The atonement is for the sin, and the guilt of it. The fact is that He takes on the accountability for those who cannot yet be held accountable. The child is literally trapped with a sin nature. When you are trapped it means you are trapped. You cannot do anything outside of that trap. You did not set the trap yourself. You did not walk into it yourself in this case. You were born trapped. To then say the person is accoutable for being in that trap and living there is total injustice in every sense of the word!

And yet, yes, the sins require atonement. Mommy had to pay for the child. Jesus paid for all of us, even the little children. We can train them, but until they know the law involved in whichever case, they cannot in justice and righteousness be held accountable for acting according to their nature. We do not blame a horse for being a horse, a dog for being a dog, a rat for being a rat. We may kill rats, but we do not blame them for being rats!

Now, when God was ready to kill ALL the Israelites, that is approximately the same as killing all the people but Noah and family during the Flood. Babies, children, retarded -- they all went.

Keep in mind, however, that God knew that Moses would offer to stand in the gap. He already knew this. It was not a surprise to Him and God did not actually change His mind! He does not change. But there was a lesson that had to be driven home and a picture that had to be made. There would come a Man, later, who COULD and would stand in the gap for all of us. Moses was a picture of Christ in many ways, but he was not Christ. Nevertheless, the picture was vitally important and so had to be constructed.

Now, about visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, yes! What did you want me to do, write the entire Bible again here for you? The consequences of the sins of the fathers are definitely visited on the children. It is not that the children are being held accountable for what their fathers did, but that what the fathers did had consequences far beyond themselves. Here is an example from our own family: when I married my children's father 30 years ago, I did not know he was taking amphetemines to get going fast on the job (he was doing carpentry piece-work at the time), although I knew he would have some beers to settle down at night. As a result, the one child we were able to have, who is now 28, has shown up with some problems they are learning are related to a father being on drugs, not just a mother (I wasn't). His immune system is weaker than many others -- he is frequently sick -- and he has a problem with tachycardia -- episodes of very rapid heartbeat that leave him weak and dizzy. Scott is in no way responsible for any of that. But he has had the iniquity of his father visited on him. The consequences of what we do spread out like ripples on a pond for several generations. That is what God was telling us through Moses.

If God was telling us that children are accountable for the sins of the fathers, then He contradicted Himself in Ezekiel. In chapter 18 it is made very clear that each person is held accountable for his own sins, as well as the fact that people can change. Ezekiel is clear that one person is not accountable for the sins of another. And yet we know for a daily fact that we do get the effects of others' sins visited on our own lives. So there is a big difference between the two.

Mark asked, "If sin is seperation from God and it first entered the world by a choice that Adam and Eve made to rebel, than How is it that sin is no longer a choice to rebel? Has God changed since then? " I think that the distinction here needs to be made between sin nature and the act of sinning. We are all born, courtesy of Adam and Eve, with sin nature -- hearts inclined toward evil (Genesis 8:21). But we do not always sin all the time! Sometimes we are -- even when not born again -- in neutral! Not good, mind you, but neutral. The tendencies are always there, but when a child is attempting to please a parent, for example, simply for the sake of making that parent happy, this is not sin.

Sin is disobedience. That's the short and the sweet of it, I think. We sin against God when we disobey His law, whether we know about the law or not. That is the point Calvinists make and very rightly so, but what is needed to be understood is the difference between guilt and accountability.

Here is another picture. Yesterday I got finally and totally tired of my profoundly retarded seventeen year old, autistic son sitting here in the den while I'm working and sneaking my very expensive Nature journals and thumbing through them. It doesn't sound bad, but he will thumb through something (in imitation of reading???) severely bending the pages and in rather short order pages end up being torn out and the magazine unreadable. No matter how many times I have given him old Sunsets and such, he loves the Nature journals. "Thou shalt leave my Nature journals alone" is my law. He is clueless (I.Q. is about 19 as far as they can measure it). So when he wants something new to thumb through, he LOOKS for a Nature journal! National Geographic is another favorite of his. Now there are just so many 'up' places he can't reach, considering he is now taller than I am!

SOOOOO, I went down to K-Mart and bought a pressure-fit kiddie gate to put across the den door when I don't want him in here. I took all his toys and allowable magazines and put them in a lower cabinet just off the pantry, where I used to keep homeschool stuff.

He was not pleased.

After a lovely dinner of baked fresh salmon, salad, and seasoned rice -- all of which we all love -- he went back to his room, stuck his finger down his throat, and threw it all up.

It is in his nature to rebel. He was not sick at all.

He did not pay attention to another law of mine: If you plan to throw up, please aim for the toilet. Even if I had told him THAT 'law', which all the other kids understood from very early on, he would not have understood it at all.

What should I do? Punish him? He would not connect the punishment with the vomit. He would only hear the tone of my voice or the sting of my hand if I were to try to 'spank' him and then there would be some moaning and tears running down his face. He wouldn't understand.

But I still had to clean up. There were still consequences, and I was the one to pay them.

I think God gave us situations in life to help us understand His teachings and Himself. We are finite and cannot understand more than a little of either in the long run, and Jesus DID say that if we loved Him we would obey Him -- He didn't say we would understand Him. Nevertheless, just as He used pictures from the daily life of the people as parables for the real truths, I think we can see from our daily lives some of what He is saying a little more clearly, too. That is why I use examples from my own daily life. It is not because my theology is based on them. It isn't. It is because parts of my daily life have helped bring the Bible into clearer focus. Having raised five adopted special case kids, the differences between consequences, guilt, and accountability have become strikingly clear to me. I hope that some of what I have shared here has made them a little more clear to you, too.

 

[PackerBacker]

Originally posted by Helen:
I understand the points that have been made.

First of all, I am not taking bits of Bible to try to fit "my point of view." It's the other way around. I have spent years reading the Bible cover to cover a number of times and praying for wisdom in discernment. My point of view is based on what the Bible is saying.

You say your view is based on what the Bible is saying, but Numbers 14 says nothing about children and teen-agers not being accountable for sin. It says nothing about the age of twenty being the mystery age before being accountable for sin. It says nothing about God knowing about teenagers having messed up heads and therefore being excused. It says nothing about children under 20 going to heaven because they are not accountable. Since the Bible does not say these things from Numbers 14, I stick to my first statement that you did take a bit of the Bible to fit your point of view. It’s not the other way around.

For arguments sake let’s say Numbers 14 was actually given to show us what the age of accountability is. Ah, but the age of accountability for which group? The Israelites. What was the age of accountability for Gentiles like the Sodomites, Canaanites, Egyptians, Amalekites, those in Jericho, the flood etc? If I used those accounts the same way you use the one in Numbers 14 I could say that the “age of accountability” was much lower than you are suggesting from one account.

Stick with God being a merciful God and doing the right thing in Num 14 instead of trying to say certain people are “not accountable.”

 

[PackerBacker]

Originally posted by Helen:

Children are guilty of sin in thought, word, and deed. But Paul is very clear in Romans that this sin is dead -- and that means it does not have the power to separate the child from God -- because the law has not been known by the child.

Paul is certainly not clear on what you are saying. Have you seriously read Romans starting from Chapter one? Where does Paul say anything about certain groups of people, particularly children not being accountable for sin? He makes his case very strong in the first three chapters that all are sinners and God’s wrath is upon them. Paul was not teaching that he was unaccountable for sin until his parents taught him the law. The whole point he is making is how a person under the law becomes very aware of their sinfulness. “The law entered that the offense might abound” (Rom 6:20). We are rebels. Put a law in front of us and sin goes wild. In context to what Paul has been speaking about he is trying to show how grace does what the law was never meant to do. If Paul was saying what you claim it would have to mean that Paul was not accountable until the Mosaic Law was instructed to him and he fully understood it (using your illustration of shoplifting). If this applies to the children up to age twenty than it would also have to apply to those of any age that do not have the Law. If your premise is correct, I am doing a disservice as a missionary when I show people God’s holy law. I am making them sinners and accountable. They were once alive (unaccountable for sin) until I killed them by bringing the law to them. If your premise is correct the best thing we could do for our kids and the people of the world is to hide the law from them.

Nevertheless the sin must be atoned for, and that is what Jesus did on the cross. The atonement is for the sin, and the guilt of it. The fact is that He takes on the accountability for those who cannot yet be held accountable.

Sounds nice but where do you come up with this? Sounds like Universalism to me. We do a disservice to our children then by letting them grow up past this mystery age if such is true. I’d do a better service as a mercenary than as a missionary.

The child is literally trapped with a sin nature. When you are trapped it means you are trapped. You cannot do anything outside of that trap. You did not set the trap yourself. You did not walk into it yourself in this case. You were born trapped. To then say the person is accoutable for being in that trap and living there is total injustice in every sense of the word!

So what makes an adult any less trapped than a child with a sin nature? Then it is likewise not fair for me as an adult to be judged for the sin nature I was born trapped in. Name me one person after Adam who was born in the garden, into a perfect world, and does not experience the curses upon the sin-cursed world? Why wasn’t I born in perfect fellowship with God. Why was I born in this “trap” I can’t get out of by myself? God blames it on Adam but who do you see as being totally unjust in every sense of the word, if it is true we are trapped with a sin nature?

We do not blame a horse for being a horse, a dog for being a dog, a rat for being a rat. We may kill rats, but we do not blame them for being rats!

Oh really? But we destroy rats for being rats, at least where I’m a missionary. At what age does a rat become accountable to be killed as a rat? Am I being unjust when I show my wrath on a small rat that may not know that it’s actions offend me?

[ May 20, 2002, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: PackerBacker ]

 

[Helen]

Dear PackerBacker,

First of all, please understand that I am not putting forth 20 years old as doctrine! I mentioned that it was something that had caught my eye in reading the Bible and I was thinking about it. Please don't beat me up for thinking, OK?

Here is some of what I found when I noticed the age of twenty and looked up what was said about that seeming cutoff age:

Exodus 30:14: "All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the Lord."

The total collected, repeating that age, can be found in Exodus 38:26, where you will see they are counted at that age as men.

In chapter 27 of Leviticus, we read this, starting from the first verse:
"The Lord said to Moses, 'Speak to the Israelites and say to them: "If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate persons to the Lord by giving equivalent values, set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; … If it is a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels…."

The age of serving in the army is twenty years old: start at Numbers 1:1 and read through that chapter. Verses 44-45 read, "These were the men counted by Moses and Aaron and the twelve leaders of Israel, each one representing his family. All the Israelites twenty years old or more who were able to serve in Israel's army were counted according to their families."

And contrary to your claim, Numbers 14 certainly DOES mention the number 20. Thus, by implication, it is delineating those under twenty (infants, children, and teens) from those twenty and older. Here are verses 38-40, although I certainly encourage you to read it all:
"So tell them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Lord, I will do to you the very things I heard you say: In this desert your bodies will fall - every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me. Not one of you will enter the land I swore with uplifted hand to make your home, except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun.'"

In Numbers 26, a census is again taken of males 20 years old and above who can serve in the army - this is after the plague.

Now that is what I noticed, and it started me thinking. I hope that is not criminal behavior. I am pretty sure it is not heretical…

And, in answer to your second post, yes, I have not only read Romans all the way through (a number of times), start to finish, but have done the same with the entire Bible for a number of years now. I am reasonably familiar with the entire book.

First of all, you stated Paul's parents taught him the law. I don't see that anywhere in the Bible, do you? Of course we may PRESUME that, and I would tend to agree with you to an extent, but what if it was at synagogue or directly from the Lord?

And if you look at Romans 1, you will see that the wrath of God is being revealed against a very special class of people: those who in their wicked acts SUPPRESS or IGNORE the truth they are presented with. That truth first has to be presented.

In contrast, in chapter 2, you will see that it is the KINDNESS of God that leads people toward repentance, not His wrath.

I agree with you when you said, "The whole point he is making is how a person under the law becomes very aware of their sinfulness." In other words, the person was Unaware before, and as long as he is unaware, Paul says sin is dead. What does that mean except that sin is powerless? Powerless to do what? To do what sin does! -- To separate a person from God; to kill spiritually. What else could the idea that sin is dead without the law mean?

This does not make anyone innocent of wrongdoing, as I have said before. But they are then not accountable for what they do not know and cannot help but do. It is when the law is made known and understood that the person then, because his heart always inclines toward evil, CHOOSES to continue in sin rather than repent of it that the person becomes accountable for his own sins. That is precisely what age of accountability means, and it is a real thing. You may disagree with the concept of 20 years old, but I showed you what made me wonder about that above.

You said that if a lack of knowledge and understanding of the law applied up to the age of twent;y, "it would also have to apply to those of any age that do not have the Law. If your premise is correct, I am doing a disservice as a missionary when I show people God's holy law. I am making them sinners and accountable."

And now I have to ask you if YOU have read the first three chapters of Romans? Particularly the part in Romans 2 which states that the law is in their hearts if they are not given the law, and that their lives attest to this. The entire point of God judging the heart is that only God knows the heart. Only God knows what the person was aware of and his or her reaction to it.

But to get to the natives who you presume are so ignorant, I would beg you to read any of the following:

Bruchko, by Bruce Olson
Peace Child, by Don Richardson
Eternity in their Hearts, by Don Richardson
Evidence Not Seen, by Darlene Rose

There are many more. All these people were missionaries telling what they had seen and experienced. In every case God has left enough of the Promise made to bring a Messiah into the world for the people to be ready to receive the Gospel. Their lives and cultures showed that they knew the basic law of God, even when it was distorted by other parts of their culture. The good news missionaries need to bring to all such people is that God did it - the Messiah did come and here is how and when and where and what happened. And they need to help the people understand that ALL law is based on loving God first and loving others as we love ourselves second. This releases them all from unimaginable burdens of the multitude of extra laws and taboos and such they must live under.

"Come to me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."

Those are some of the most important words in the four Gospels.

 

[PackerBacker]

Originally posted by PackerBacker:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
How can you be accountable for something you have never done?

Why were Cain, Abel, Seth, etc born outside the garden, away from the tree of life, separated from God, and cursed to return to dust just like their parents? Applying your same question, How could God hold them accountable for something they never did?</font>[/QUOTE]Still waiting for a reply on this.

 

[PackerBacker]

Originally posted by Helen:
The child is literally trapped with a sin nature. When you are trapped it means you are trapped. You cannot do anything outside of that trap. You did not set the trap yourself. You did not walk into it yourself in this case. You were born trapped. To then say the person is accoutable for being in that trap and living there is total injustice in every sense of the word!

So what makes an adult any less trapped than a child with a sin nature? Then it is likewise not fair for me as an adult to be judged for the sin nature I was born trapped in. Name me one person after Adam who was born in the garden, into a perfect world, and does not experience the curses upon the sin-cursed world? Why wasn’t I born in perfect fellowship with God. Why was I born in this “trap” I can’t get out of by myself? God blames it on Adam but who do you see as being totally unjust in every sense of the word, if it is true we are trapped with a sin nature?

Helen,

Still waiting for you to answer this one also.

 

[Caretaker]

God sends the children of the children of Israel into the land because they did not have enough understanding to reject God. --

Deu 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

There is a time in life when a person does not receive the FULL measure of the consequences of wrong doing. It is in childhood, where
understanding is being developed.

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Unborn children and yes aborted children are not capable of doing right or wrong and are there fore not culpable.

Rom 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, ...

Now, here is the real crux of the matter: If the dead will be judged in Rev 20:11-15 according to "their works," how can those who have no
knowledge of good or evil (infants, young children, mentally defcient) and those who have
not yet done any "good or evil" (the unborn) be held accountable for their lack of understanding?

Understanding the w-o-r-d-s of the law was necessary in the giving and teaching of the law.

Neh 8:2 And Ezra the priest brought the law
before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

God does not require children to understand doctrine and doctrine is necessary for redemption.

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge?
and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be
upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Gen 18:25 ... Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Yes, HE will!!

The Bible teaches that we all inherited Adam's sinful nature, therefore death has entered the human race. Babies (and everyone else) die because of inherited sin. According to the Bible, if we go to Hell, it is because of our particular sins (primarily rejection of Jesus Christ), not because of inherited sin. The judgement is based on our own sin, though death is a result of inherited sin.

According to the Bible, babies do sin, though the Lord does not hold them accountable because they do not clearly understand what they are doing. (In the book of Leviticus, if a person sinned unknowingly they were still guilty, but did not have to make atonement until the sin was revealed to them. Lev. 4-5.)

Psalm 51:5 teaches inherited sin. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalm 58:3 teaches personal sin of babies. The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. How many babies do you know that whine and fuss and throw tantrums like something is wrong, but they aren't hungry, they just don't want to go to sleep or be left alone in the crib. So they make it seem like there is something wrong by crying - speaking lies. Now a child does not clearly understand what they are doing is wrong, but according to the Bible, it is still wrong. We use the phrase "age of accountability" (which is different for each child) to mean that they are not accountable for their sins before God until they can clearly understand what sin is and why they need a Saviour. And the Lord's mercies are upon anyone (child, unborn, or even mentally handicapped - I believe) who dies before they come to a full understanding of what sin is.

When David and Bathsheba's child died, David said that the child would not come back to him, but that one day he would go to be with the child. Where is David going to spend eternity? In Heaven! (See 2 Samuel 12:23.) He is not referring to the grave, because he does not say he shall go to the same place, but he shall go to him (to be with the child).

Our glorious Lord Jesus Christ said,"Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven. Praise the Lord for His mercy endureth forever.

May God bless.

A servant of Christ,
Drew

Psalm 51:10
Create in me a clean heart,O God and renew a right spirit within me.

 

[PackerBacker]

Originally posted by Helen:
Dear PackerBacker,

First of all, please understand that I am not putting forth 20 years old as doctrine! I mentioned that it was something that had caught my eye in reading the Bible and I was thinking about it. Please don't beat me up for thinking, OK?

If you came across in your posts as only “thinking” I never would have questioned you in the first place. Your comments of what is clearly taught or what is fact come across much stronger than just thinking. So is it my turn to ask not to be “beat-up” because you are questioning my thinking about your thinking?

Originally posted by Helen:
And contrary to your claim, Numbers 14 certainly DOES mention the number 20.

So where was my claim that the number 20 was not in Numbers 14? Rather than repeat myself, this is what I posted before.

“You say your view is based on what the Bible is saying, but Numbers 14 says nothing about children and teen-agers not being accountable for sin. It says nothing about the age of twenty being the mystery age before being accountable for sin. It says nothing about God knowing about teenagers having messed up heads and therefore being excused. It says nothing about children under 20 going to heaven because they are not accountable.”

Come on Helen, at least be honest when you represent what I said.

Originally posted by Helen:
Now that is what I noticed, and it started me thinking. I hope that is not criminal behavior. I am pretty sure it is not heretical…

Oh there’s a crowd getter. Paint yourself as a martyr for being questioned. As most of your posts on this thread they seem to be far more emotionally driven than factual.

Originally posted by Helen:
First of all, you stated Paul's parents taught him the law. I don't see that anywhere in the Bible, do you? Of course we may PRESUME that, and I would tend to agree with you to an extent, but what if it was at synagogue or directly from the Lord?

Are you seriously that desperate that you will over look that whole paragraph and pull out a comment about Paul’s parents to haggle over? Was that the point I was trying to make? You know better. Let me restate that comment so you don’t get hung up on it again. “Paul was not teaching that he was unaccountable for sin until he was taught the law.” Better?

I’ll address your other comments about “ignorant natives” later, when I get some more time.

Steve

 

[KenH]

We have to be careful on this subject that we don't end up with a false idea that young children are saved and then become unsaved because they reach some supposed age of accountability. Anyone who is saved, regardless of age or mental abilility, is rescued from the flesh because Jesus atoned for his sins on the cross. Young children can be elect unto salvation the same as adults.

 

[Me2]

Hello All,
Just An Idea. When Paul Said That There Was No One Righteous. Did He Mean It. Did He
Mean That Throughout History That No one Could Sacrifice A Newly Born Child
For The Sins of the World, Because The Child Was Born In Sin
Wouldnt Abrahams Sacrifice Of His Child Sufficed (If Successful)

[ May 22, 2002, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Me2 ]

 

[dave brauer]

2 Sam 12:23 David said in reference to his 1st son born of Bathsheba, that died after birth: "but now is he dead, wherefore should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." David was confident of his salvation and he was likewise confident of going to this son. Think about it...

As to the accountability issue I appreciate the thought that went into the children of Israel point. Age 20 and under. Regarding at what age children should be led to the Lord, this is a very individual consideration. I cringe at "child evangelism". I have personally counselled many children regarding salvation. I have gained a greater understanding through these experiences. Salvation is of the Lord. Salvation is not in a prayer. It is in the person of Jesus Christ. Churches and ministries that pressure or excessively persuade young children to pray a prayer (eg "Dear Jesus please come into my heart") are not following a biblical pattern. It is important to help each child realize that they sin because they are a sinner. That whenever they sin, that it is always a sin against God (Gen. 39). As they are brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, one day they will be accountable, hopefully when they experience the drawing of the Father (John 6), they will respond to God on God's terms.

 

[Robert J Hutton]

Warm Christian greetings!

Please read Genesis 18 v 25:

".....shall not the judge of all the earth do right?"

It is best to leave this matter with Him; he knows best and will always do what is right.

Kind regards

Robert J Hutton

 

[Brother_Joey_Gowdy]

Contrary to popular belief -

No matter how YOUNG and no matter how OLD -

when a person realizes that they are lost and need Jesus -

THEN they have reached the "age of accountability"

 

[rstrats]

B.J.G.,

re: “Contrary to popular belief -

No matter how YOUNG and no matter how OLD -

when a person realizes that they are lost and need Jesus -

THEN they have reached the ‘age of accountability’"

So does that mean that an atheist is never accountable?

 

[Brother_Joey_Gowdy]

Originally posted by rstrats:
So does that mean that an atheist is never accountable?

Great question -

summed up in one word though -

denial

What drove the atheist to deny the existance of God ?

If a person "A" walks up to person "B" - and has a gift in their hand and says "Take this - its a free gift."

Person "B" has a choice -
1. Accept the gift
or
2. Deny the gift.

Person "B" cannot "deny" what isnt offered to them.

Get the point ?



[ July 01, 2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Brother_Joey_Gowdy ]

 

[rstrats]

B.J.G.,

re: “What drove the atheist to deny the existence of God?”

Since beliefs can not be consciously CHOSEN, I think the better wording would be: “What may have been the cause/s for the engendering of the atheist’s belief that a supreme being does not exist?”

re: “Person "B" cannot "deny" what isn’t offered to them. Get the point?”

I’m afraid I don’t. Could you please elaborate.

 

[Bible Believing Bill]

I'm bumping this one back up. I heard an interesting theory on the age of accountablity tonight at church. It is basicly what GrannyGumbo recounted in her post at the begining of this thread.

The Preacher said he believes the age of accountablity is the first time God places you under conviction. That could be at age 5, 10, 21, 32, 47, 63 or whatever, but when God tells you for the first time you are a sinner then you are accountable.

What does everyone think of this.

Bill

 

[Ulsterman]

The term "age of accountability" is nowhere found in Scripture. I think there is merit to what Bible Believing Bill just said in the previous posting, but I think the best Scriptural argument is the one posted by Helen near the beginning of the thread (BTW, if Helen were a male, I think she'd be a great preacher - I have appreciated almost everything I have read by her, she always comes back to "What saith the Scripture?") I prefer to use the term "age of responsibility" which whilst it is equally unscriptural, conveys a fact recognized both in Scripture and in most societies that a person cannot be held fully responsible for their actions until they have reached a certain age. The age in the Bible is 20, proven from several key passages - This was the age at which God chose to judge the rebellious Israelites who refused to occupy Canaan, it is the age by which one was responsible for military service, and it was the age at which one was responsible for temple tax. All of this in no way negates the reality of man's sinful nature, the imputation of Adam's sin upon him, the fact that he is a sinner from birth (we sin beacuse we are sinners, and not sinners because we sin) nor his need to be saved at the earliest possible moment

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Bible Believing Bill:
The Preacher said he believes the age of accountablity is the first time God places you under conviction. That could be at age 5, 10, 21, 32, 47, 63 or whatever, but when God tells you for the first time you are a sinner then you are accountable.

That's what I believe.