Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | Morant61 | 66740 | ||
Greetings Retxar! I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, so I might be repeating past information. But, at the risk of being repeatative, here is a position on the 'age of accountability' which I posted sometime back. *************************************** The issue of accountability is really an issue of original sin. Romans 5, among other verses, makes it abundantly clear that all human beings have a sin nature. This sin nature is a result of the fall of Adam and has been passed down through all of his descendants. As you correctly pointed out, this is the reason for the virgin birth - that Christ would not come into life with a sin nature. The question that the age of accountability addresses is this : How does original sin effect me? Do I die and go to hell because of Adam?s sin? Does a baby, who has not had a choice to accept or reject Christ, get punished, not for their sin, but for Adam?s? Here is my understanding of the theological basis for an "age of accountability." Romans 5 makes it clear that the extent of the "gift" corresponds exactly with the extent of the fall. Romans 5:18 says, "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." There are differences between the fall and the "gift", but they each effect all of us. This has led many, including myself, to the falling conclusion: Christ paid the debt for all men?s sins on Calvary. This does not mean that all men are saved. It simply means that no of us will be sent to hell simply because of Adam?s sin. That debt has been atoned for by Christ. My denomination?s (United Brethren in Christ) official position on depravity is this: We are all born depraved, but not culpable. It is only when we reach the point that we know to accept or reject Christ that we become "guilty." This means that infants, who have not yet had the opportunity to accept or reject Christ, are covered by Calvary. Thus, my take on this issue is that infants are covered by God?s grace until they reach an age (and no one knows when this is, it will be different with each child) where they are old enough to either accept or reject Christ. My personal opinion is that this takes place sometime very early on in the child?s life. I accepted Christ when I was six. ****************************************** I know that I have posted a couple of other times on this issue, if you would like to read them search under Morant61 for 'age' and 'accountability'. Have a great night my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Hypothetical Question? | Matt 18:6 | charis | 66752 | ||
Dear Tim, Greetings in Jesus' name! I read this before, and I understand the concept and the motive. Out of curiosity, I must ask: If the age of accountability is fairly young, then does a child of six years old become culpable? (if he were as mature as you were at that age) Just to clarify this in my mind - a child could be saved until this age of culpability (i.e. six), then lose his salvation for six years until age twelve, then choose to 'accept' Jesus, and sing, "...I once was lost, but now am found, was blind, but now I see!"? From this point does this child have 'eternal security' as a believer, or is he succeptable to the temptation of the teen years? Brother, I am not being facetious. I really would like to know how this works. Blessings in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
3 | Hypothetical Question? | Matt 18:6 | Morant61 | 66758 | ||
Greetings Charis! Thanks for the questions and comments my friend! I don't really prefer the phrase 'age of accountability'. As you know, it is not found in Scripture, but I do believe that the theological concept behind it is found there. The ground work is simply this: What Christ did for us on the cross is parallel to what Adam did to us in the fall. Here is what one theologian, Millard Erickson, writes in his "Christian Theology": ***************************************** "The parallelism that Paul draws in Romans 5 between adam and Christ in their relationship to us is impressive. He asserts that in some parallel way what each of them did has its influence on us (As Adam's sin leads to death, so Christ's act of righteousness leads to life). What is this parallel? If, as we might be inclinded to think, the condemnation and guilt of Adam are imputed to us without there being on our part any sort of conscious choice of his act, the same would necessarily hold true of the imputation of Christ's rigtheousness and redeeming work. But does his death justify us simply by virtue of his identification with hmanity through the incarnation and independently of whether we make a conscious and personal acceptance of his work? And do all men have the grace of Christ imputed to them, just as all have Adam's sin imputed to them? The usual answer of evangelicals is no; there is abundant evidence that there are two classes of persons, the lost and the saved, and that only a decision to accept the work of Christ makes it effective in our lives. But if this is the case, then would not the imputation of guilt based upon the action of Adam, albeit Adam as including us, require some sort of volitional choice as well? If there is no 'unconscious faith,' can there be 'unconscious sin'? And what are we to say of infants who did? Despite having participated in that first sin, they are somehow accepted and saved. Although they have made no conscious choice of Christ's work (or of Adam's sin for that matter), the spiritual effects of the curse are negated in their case." (pp. 638-639). ********************************************** With this in mind, I would not describe a child's relationship as saved - lost - saved, but as not guilty - guilty/lost - saved. The atoning act of Christ is what makes salvation possible for all men. He dealt with original sin and guilt and thus made it possible for all men to come to Him in faith. What about 'eternal security'? Oh no! I'm not going down that road! :-) Suffice it to say, that every believer has to deal with temptation. So, the question really has to do with the extent and nature of the atonement. Did Christ atone for all or only some? Was His atonement a parallel to Adam's sin, as Romans 5 argues, or not? We had no choice to accept or reject Adam's sin, yet death came upon all men. In the same way, life came through Christ's death. We are born depraved, but not guilty until such a time as we actually choose to sin. At what age does this occur? I can't say. It probably differs from child to child. This seems to me to mirror Paul's description of himself in Romans 7:9, "Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died." By the way, this is not the same as universal salvation, which would argue that all will be saved. Those who hold to unlimited atonement would made the case that every individual, when old enough to choose, will ratify their sinful nature and choose sin. Thus, bringing upon ourselves the full guilt of original sin. I hope this answers some of your questions. It certainly is a very deep topic to be discussing at 5:30 in the morning! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||