age of accountability

[lanette]

What is your perspective on "age of accountability"? What about mentally retarded people?

[Mike Miller]

Well, you surely don't believe in asking easy questions, do you? But of course you know that I love the hard ones.

Anyway, the "age of accountability" is not a concept found in Scripture even in the slightest. For those who don't know what this refers to, however, it is the concept that children are innocent until they reach a certain age at which they become responsible for their sins. The idea is that babies and small children are saved, so that if they die during this innocence, they will go to heaven. However, once a person reaches the certain "age," then that person is lost until turning to Christ.

So, what about it? Is there some kind of age of accountability? If babies die, do they go to heaven? And what about those menatlly handicapped people who never come to moral awareness?

This is actually a very sensitive and hotly debated subject. Because of the obvious emotional aspects of the topic, many people are very dogmatic in their opinions and have zero patience with those who disagree. The question we must ask, however, is "What does the Bible say?" And therein lies the problem, because the Bible is almost completely silent about the matter. In fact, no passage answers the question directly, but we must piece together implications from various passages that address other matters.

To begin with, we have to consider human nature. As you know, I believe in the doctrine of "total depravity," which means that all humans are born with a completely depraved nature with zero ability to save ourselves. I get this from the entirety of Scripture, but the clearest text is probably Romans 3:10-18 (see also Psalm 51:5). This means that we are all born sinners, and are indeed such even from conception. We also know that we are only saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:1-10). Therefore, many believe that babies, being conceived into sin, and not yet having faith, are not saved, being accountable for their sin nature.

Now, before you respond to that belief with astonishment, let me say that it is hard to refute biblically. I will also say, however, that that is not my belief, but I hold the position I hold with great humility, knowing that it is not a simple issue.

Before I tell you where I stand, I will lay the biblical foundation. First, while I do believe we are born into sin, with sin natures, I define that as meaning that we will all choose to sin when we are old enough to make that choice. I believe that sin, by defninition, is only sin when we either knowingly commit it, or when we commit it with the moral and intellectual capacity to know that it is sin. In other words, when a toddler smashes the face of his playmate who just took his toy, he knows he is not supposed to do so because he always gets his hand spanked along with a strong "No!" from mommy. However, he only knows that his actions bring negative consequences; he has no concept of moral right or wrong. Therefore, I do not believe he is guilty of committing a sin. When he arrives at a moral awareness of right and wrong and smacks someone in the face, then he commits a sin. Yes, we are born into sin, but my understanding is that Jesus died for our "sins," and not just our sin natures, for it is our sins that are an offense to God (see 1 John 3:5; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24). This concept would also apply to the mentally handicapped person who has no moral comprehension.

Second, there is one vague reference in the Bible to the eternal destiny of a baby. It is very vague, but I believe it does speak to the issue. In 2 Samuel 12, David's infant son died as a result of David's sin with Bathsheba. Before his son's death, he fasted, but after his son died, he worshiped and broke his fast. His servants asked why he fasted before and not after (to show his grief), he responded, "Now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (verse 23). Now, some will argue (convincingly) that since we don't see much of a concept of an afterlife in the Old Testament, David was simply saying that he would someday die and go to the grave also, so he might as well get on with living. I disagree because of David's act of worship and because he didn't say, "I shall to to the place where he is, but to him." I believe that David, having recently repented of his sin, was saying in effect, "I can't bring my son back, but I'm going to make sure I'm right with God so I can go be with him someday."

Now, I've pretty much simplified the issue, because there are variations on the different beliefs. For example, Roman Catholics and some others believe that babies are lost until they are baptized. Some Presbyterians I know (not all) believe that the babies of a saved parent are saved, but that if both parents are lost, then the babies are lost (and yes, I'm still oversimplifying, and their argument is not weak). Most Baptists believe in an age of accountability.

My belief is that one must sin in order to be accountable for that sin. We do not sin until we are morally and intellectually capable of at least a basic understanding of right and wrong. But that doesn't happen at a certain age. It happens in each individual at different times. For someone with a mental handicap, it might never happen. I believe that a person who dies in this innocence will go to heaven, but I reject the "age of accountability," preferring instead to speak in terms of a development of moral awareness and responsibility. And please understand that I hold to this position with humility, understanding that the biblical support for it is tenuous at best. However, I see it as the most consistent position, both biblically (direct biblical support) and theologically (what the Bible says about God and salvation). In addition to the biblical references above, we know God to be both perfectly just and full of grace. I believe the position I have explained best upholds the justice and grace of God more faithfully than any other.

[lyates]

If my son shows me that he can intentionally choose to sin (tells me he didn't eat candy when he did) would you assume that he is accountable? I know that my 5 year old can understand basic wrongs and rights but I don't think he can understand the gospel enough to accept salvation. I answer all of his curious questions without watering anything down but I don't think he can understand his need for salvation.

[Mike Miller]

Well, I obviously can't speak as to where your son is in his moral reasoning, but I think you answered the question by saying that he can't comprehend the Gospel yet. I will reiterate that there is a difference between knowing that there are rules that can be broken ("Don't do that!") and having a moral understanding of right and wrong. In other words, a 3 year old knows that he is not supposed to bite someone. When he does so, he gets walloped (or bitten back). However, that 3 year old probably doesn't understand why he isn't supposed to bite someone--that it is wrong to retaliate or to treat others with disrespect because they are worthy of respect as human beings. All he knows is that his mommy told him not to do it. In addition, when he does bite someone, he has no capacity to feel sorrow for the other child nor to grieve over his sin. His grief comes from his punishment or retribution.

When I sin, I am capable of understanding that my sin doesn't just break a rule, but it is morally wrong. I am also capable of remorse, grief, and guilt. That doesn't mean I will be remorseful, but I certainly should be. That is the distinction I am trying to make.

[athanasius]

Dr. Miller.

I have wrestled with this issue. I still do at times. In reading your thoughts, and with the realization that most Baptists (to my knowledge) feels this way, I have struggled to find anything in the Bible to believe this.

I know that perhaps this is a stretch, but do you think that John 9:41

Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.

would be reason to think that the Bible show legitimacy to the thought that sin is sin when the agent is capable of perceiving right and wrong?

[Mike Miller]

As I said, the Bible does not speak clearly to this issue. However, you ask where the Bible says sin is only present when the agent is capable of discerning right from wrong. The Bible nowhere explicitly says this, but I infer this as the very definition of sin. In Romans 1, God says people are without excuse. Why? Because they are able to discern something about God's nature from the created world. In other words, they are guilty because they are able to discern something, which renders them without excuse. Without the capacity for such discernment, the implication seems to be that guilt is not present.

Of course, this also opens up the whole discussion about what it means to inherit the sin nature and the guilt of Adam. We will leave that for another day.

[athanasius]

I have thought this about Romans 1. We could make a conditional statement such as, "If you are aware of your sin, then you have no excuse."

While the inverse seems logical, "If you are not aware of your sin, then you do have an excuse," the reality is we cannot assume that the inverse of a certain conditional statement is true. We could assume this if we knew "A person has no excuse if and only if that person is aware of their sin."

For any who might disagree, I will share the example that I was taught. "If you have a Ferrari, then you have a car," is a true statement. The inverse of this statement would be, "if you do not have a Ferrari, then you do not have a car." This is not necessarily true, for perhaps I have a Corvette; it is not a Ferrari, but it is a car.

[Mike Miller]

Unfortunately, it seems I did not communicate well, since you have completely misunderstood my reference to Romans 1. I was not making my case from an inverse inference, but rather from a direct logical inference. Nevertheless, let me provide some more biblical support for my position:

Deuteronomy 1:39 says that the children will not be punished (by failing to enter the Promised Land) because they "have no knowledge of good or evil."

Matthew 18:3-5 says that we must "become like children" to enter the kingdom of heaven, which certainly seems to indicate that little children will enter the kingdom of heaven.

All teaching about salvation says we must repent and trust Christ. Babies have no capacity to repent and trust Christ. Does this mean that babies will go to hell for sins they did not commit, even though they do not have the ability to repent from said sins? Ezekiel 18:20 says, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son."

[athanasius]

I'm sorry. I wasn't implying that I thought that was what you were saying. What I was trying to say is it could seem the inverse to be true. I have heard (not from you) this to be the case. It is clear that the failing to be clear is not in you but in me. I apologize sir.

[Guest]

     I had just a thought on this topic that maybe is worth sharing.  The Bible definitely does not give a lot of direct information about infants and children in terms of salvation, but one thing I did notice is the actions of Jesus when He walked among us.  Several times the writers of the Gospels gave accounts of Jesus taking small ones into His arms and using their innocence and trust as models for adults. He even went so far as to say that the "kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these" (Mathew 19:14) and to give very stern warnings against anyone who would cause "one of these little ones - those who believe in me - to stumble...." (Mathew 18:6).  I think that the way He consistently and intentionally presented them as models of attitude and trust demonstrates His position that these innocent small ones were / are safely in His care. It is difficult to believe that He would present them as such examples of what God wants from us if this were not the case.  

[Guest]

Feb 16, 2008 17:20:48 GMT -5 Mike Miller said:

To begin with, we have to consider human nature. As you know, I believe in the doctrine of "total depravity," which means that all humans are born with a completely depraved nature with zero ability to save ourselves. I get this from the entirety of Scripture, but the clearest text is probably Romans 3:10-18 (see also Psalm 51:5). This means that we are all born sinners, and are indeed such even from conception. We also know that we are only saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:1-10). Therefore, many believe that babies, being conceived into sin, and not yet having faith, are not saved, being accountable for their sin nature.

How do you reconcile these two views. It seems that your position on sin and when someone is held accountable for it is completely contradicting your view on total depravity. How can we inherit Adams sin and it's penalty from birth as Romans 7 says but not be held accountable for it until we can morally understand it. 

[Mike Miller]

My position is not contradictory at all. Total depravity means that we are all born with a sin nature. We are incapable of responding to Jesus without the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. This is Adam's sin nature imputed to us. However, we are not condemned by Adam's sin. We are only condemned by our own sin, and infants have yet to commit any sins (though we all sin as soon as we are able to do so).

Check out this very helpful article: www.albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/the-salvation-of-the-little-ones-do-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven/

[Guest]

Wow! That's really good! It really clears up what I've been wrestling with for years. I've never thought of original sin in this way. This line of thought is really the most thorough with dealing with the question of where babies go when they die. Thank you pastor mike!

[TG]

I grew up Missionary Baptist and heard about the age of accountability. Always heard the age of 12 years associated with a.o.a. As I have studied and read, and with seeing my own children and grandchildren, I do not think this is sound biblical doctrine. The age of responsibility would be much younger as I think they can understand the sacrifice of Christ for our sin at a much younger age than 12 yrs. old. I have several grandchildren who have accepted Christ as his/her Savior and younger ones who haven't. The ones who have accepted Christ were about 7 to 8 years old. I guess my fear is losing a grandchild before he has accepted Christ as his Savior. I know God is full of grace but is just and holy. So as I read and think about your answer above, my thought would be that my young grandchildren would be safe until they reach an age when they understand their sin and Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for their sin. I think this is just and full of grace. Am I understanding your reply on Feb. 16, 2008?

[Mike Miller]

Yes, TG, you are understanding me correctly--with one exception. I believe they are safe until they have an understanding of sin, but they are still accountable to God whether or not they understand Jesus' sacrifice on their behalf.