The doctrine often called the “age of accountability” is one of the most foundational Baptist beliefs, yet it is also one of the least understood beliefs
Age of Accountability Although the phrase “the age of accountability” is not mentioned specifically in Scripture (as is the case with other doctrines such as the Trinity), there is scriptural warrant for this belief. Perhaps the best biblical support for the “age of accountability” is in Jeremiah 31:29-30 and the parallel passage in Ezekiel 18:14-21, which makes clear that we are only accountable under the new covenant for our own sins, not those of our parents
The problem with the age of accountability is federal headship in Adam and the parallel to federal headship in Christ.
I feel for this writer for having lost a child, but the article wreaks of starting with a presupposition, that children born before the ‘age of accountability’ go to Heaven, and then set out to prove it. There are better ways to comfort one who lost a child and remain true to federal headship.
I feel for this writer for having lost a child, but the article wreaks of starting with a presupposition, that children born before the ‘age of accountability’ go to Heaven, and then set out to prove it. There are better ways to comfort one who lost a child and remain true to federal headship.
I just finished a series of 4 letters to our congregation on the question of those who die in infancy, and while I believe that they go to heaven, I must say that this author’s route to that position leads to an interesting conclusion. According to him, there is an innumerable host in heaven who were never forgiven of anything, and for whom Christ’s death was not a propitiation. The other interesting thing is that he jumps from infants to adults and seemingly leaves everyone from age 2 to 12 out of any consideration. Does this mean that children’s ministries are making kids culpable of sin? Like I said, interesting.
Agreed, Daniel.
BTW, MacArthur’s Safe in the Arms of God is a pretty good answer to this question.
Agreed, Daniel.
BTW, MacArthur’s Safe in the Arms of God is a pretty good answer to this question.
Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.
http://www.seektheholy.com/2010/07/27/a-response-to-steve-lemke-on-age-… A Response to Steve Lemke on Age of Accountability
On the whole, I am perplexed by this article. Lemke claims to be presenting the argument for an age of accountability but what he actually does is to argue against other doctrinal claims, particularly original sin and infant baptism. Nowhere does he lay out the case for age of accountability (I will present my tentative arguments for it at the end of this entry). Instead, he presents bad arguments and distorted facts to rail against certain Reformed beliefs.
In this entry I will not deal much with arguments for or against original sin and infant baptism. I do believe in original sin, but I do not believe infant baptism is biblical. But my greater issue with Lemke’s article is not with what he believes but in how he argues for what he believes.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
I still don’t particularly agree with Chris’ defense of the age of accountability, but it is an immensely more plausible view. But I wholeheartedly agree with his first comment about his position (which is identical to what I believe:
First, I do not believe we have enough biblical evidence to be dogmatic. Ultimately, we must just trust in God. We know he will do what is best.So, if they are not held accountable, God is good, and if they are held accountable, God is still good. Ultimately, I prefer to hold more closely to what is more clear and spoken of in scripture rather than obscure passages that may or may not be about accountability. Even Chris’ Deuteronomy passage does not necessitate a 1 for 1 relation. (I would imagine he would not say it is either.)
A friend recently brought up an interesting point in a discussion of the age of accountability question: If we really believed that unborn babies and infants necessarily go to heaven, then why are we so upset about abortion?
Now, the obvious answer is: because God forbids murder, as an affront to His image in man. But even then, couldn’t we at least see a “silver lining” to the abortion epidemic? America is really just populating heaven with millions of souls that never had the chance to actually sin and become “accountable.” That’s a lot of people that would probably have grown up, chosen to reject Christ, and gone to Hell, right?
[quote Daniel ] So, if they are not held accountable, God is good, and if they are held accountable, God is still good. True. But of course goodness is not God’s only attribute. If they are not held accountable, God is good, but not just. Romans 3:23-26
[quote Dave G] no member of the human race will be in Heaven outside of Christ.
Amen! So how does the goodness and justness of God play out in relation to infants. Well, I believe that if we were supposed to know that, He would have told us. We hate not knowing things. We hate not having a concrete answer. Sometimes we just have to let Dad be Dad and trust what we know of His character, even when we don’t understand the details.
Now, the obvious answer is: because God forbids murder, as an affront to His image in man. But even then, couldn’t we at least see a “silver lining” to the abortion epidemic? America is really just populating heaven with millions of souls that never had the chance to actually sin and become “accountable.” That’s a lot of people that would probably have grown up, chosen to reject Christ, and gone to Hell, right?
[quote Daniel ] So, if they are not held accountable, God is good, and if they are held accountable, God is still good. True. But of course goodness is not God’s only attribute. If they are not held accountable, God is good, but not just. Romans 3:23-26
[quote Dave G] no member of the human race will be in Heaven outside of Christ.
Amen! So how does the goodness and justness of God play out in relation to infants. Well, I believe that if we were supposed to know that, He would have told us. We hate not knowing things. We hate not having a concrete answer. Sometimes we just have to let Dad be Dad and trust what we know of His character, even when we don’t understand the details.
The danger of being a forum director …. I meant to quote you and instead I edited your comment.
Results … the full of what you originally posted is gone …. sorry about that. Here is my response with a section of your comment
I believe the author misrepresents Baptists
Steve Lemke wrote:
I’m a Baptist and I believe the author misrepresents Baptists
London Baptist Confession: http://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/bcf.htm
Section: Of the fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof. http://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/bcfc06.htm#chapter6
Quote:
Results … the full of what you originally posted is gone …. sorry about that. Here is my response with a section of your comment
I believe the author misrepresents Baptists
Steve Lemke wrote:
I am not a Baptist, and haven’t studied Baptist doctrine specifically, so this really caught me off guard. Help me out here: Is his statement generally true of Baptists? They believe children are born sinless, but just with a bent toward sin that at some point eventually manifests itself in actual sin and subsequent guilt? (BTW, I’m not Reformed either, but this just doesn’t sound like Scriptural thinking to me at all. Maybe I’m really missing something here.) Any input from the Baptists in the crowd?
I’m a Baptist and I believe the author misrepresents Baptists
London Baptist Confession: http://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/bcf.htm
Section: Of the fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof. http://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/bcfc06.htm#chapter6
Quote:
Our first Parents by this Sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them, whereby death came upon all; all becoming dead in Sin, and wholly defiled, (e) in all the faculties, and parts, of soul, and body.
No problem about the technical difficulties.
Thanks for the clarification. I have read portions of the LBC in the past and certainly didn’t remember hearing anything like what the author was saying. It’s interesting how he paints so broadly and assumes most hold his same view. (I suppose we all do that from time to time.) While I’m not from a “Baptist” background (raised in a Bible Church — in Ohio = the “good kind”), I would probably align with Baptist doctrine more than anything, and it surprised me to think I had missed such a position as his if it was as widespread as he seems to indicate.
It’s also interesting to me how much of his view of the issue at hand rests on that odd view of inherited sin.
Thanks for the clarification. I have read portions of the LBC in the past and certainly didn’t remember hearing anything like what the author was saying. It’s interesting how he paints so broadly and assumes most hold his same view. (I suppose we all do that from time to time.) While I’m not from a “Baptist” background (raised in a Bible Church — in Ohio = the “good kind”), I would probably align with Baptist doctrine more than anything, and it surprised me to think I had missed such a position as his if it was as widespread as he seems to indicate.
It’s also interesting to me how much of his view of the issue at hand rests on that odd view of inherited sin.
Discussion