Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Seymour
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105

Posted 5/8/2002 8:46 PM (GMT -6)

The idea that there is an age of accountability, that before this age one is not held responsible because they have not yet become accountable, has always seemed to me to be a quirky little cultural phenomenon that has propped up, from who knows where, and been popularity embraced by fundagelicals.

Does anyone know the history of this belief?

But a friend of mine planted this wonderful gracious about the age of accountability into my head. We’re always told that the age of accountability is something like around five or six years old (where we got this age seems arbitrary to me). But what if it’s 50?

We’ve all made such a hash of life. And we get the first 50 years to just practice some, then after we get our barrings we are finally ready to do it for real. I think this is a much healthier view, it puts too much stress on five year olds otherwise, and it takes a more humble approach to the mastery of life.

Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown

ContoThgar
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 1

Posted 5/29/2002 9:15 PM (GMT -6)

I believe in the 'age of accountability' theory, but I do not believe it is a physical age, rather, I believe it is a mental age. With that said, if a mentally retarded 23 year old man could not grasp the concept of Jesus, God, crucifixion, paying for sins, resurrection, etc, he would not be sent to hell. I believe once the person has reached a certain mental level, then they are held responsible for their choices.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/29/2002 9:43 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome aboard Conto!

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 5/30/2002 2:36 AM (GMT -6)

Welcome Conto,
Good answer!

-S

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Ps. 19:1

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 5/30/2002 7:36 PM (GMT -6)

One of my professors said that the age of accountability theology comes primarily from two places. (1) It makes sense. Why should you send a little child to hell who hasn't done anything awful? But reason number to is irrefutable... (2) babies are SOO CUTE!

He said this half joking and half serious. There really isn't (to my knowledge) biblical basis for this "age of accountability." I've always found it odd that Evangelicals (I've been raised Southern Baptist) are so quick to say that a baby will go to heaven without a confession of faith in Christ. They are a little less hesitant to say that of a 5 year old and a lot more hesitant to say it of a 9 year old. They awkwardly say that a mentally retarded person will probably go to heaven. However when it gets to the question of those who have never heard, it's always, "I believe that God is a just God and will do what is right."

I think that perhaps a greatest provoker of the doctrine is understanding (or misunderstanding) of another doctrine: Hell. If we look at hell the traditional way (Hell as eternity of being burned but not consumed by fire) it makes our stomach queazy to think of babies as its occupants. Thus we contrive a doctrine such as "age of accountability." But what if that view of hell was wrong?

I have been experimenting with a different approach to hell than what we have seen either from the traditional view or the annihilationists. It focuses on Hell described as the "second death." I have been comparing the "second death" to the "first death" (a.k.a. "intermediate state", Sheol, etc.) and have noticed striking similarities - especially if we consider the metaphor of "sleep" used to describe death and then relate that to what we see describe of Sheol.

So, in regards to the age of accountability (a question that actually spurred my research on the subject of Hell), I believe that everyone will be judged according to their knowledge of and faith in the gospel. God, being the only omniscient one, is the only one to judge that. Most people would agree that there are going to be levels of punishment in hell. I need to test this further, but it seems like whenever the idea of torment is used to describe hell it is talking about those who rejected Him and the Truth or else persecuted the church. I doesn't dwell on "torment" of those who never heard the gospel (although this is debatable). Like I said, this needs to be tested further. But if it is true, it could solve our "problem" of the "age of accountabilty."

Those who do not make a confession of faith in Christ (because they don't know better) may simply be "put to sleep" in a peaceful way. It think that the afterlife for those in hell will be very much like a dream: a nightmare for some (the wicked) and perhaps neutral or even a little pleasant for those who went through no fault of their own (babies, the mentally retarded, some of those who have never heard). The latter do not enter into real eternal life of fellowship with God, but neither are they tormented forever. Thus, there is no reason for the biblically unfounded doctrine of "age of accountability."

I wrote this with going into much cumbersome detail of my biblical support I have found for my view of hell simply because it is unnecessary for the nature of this post. But I am willing to answer any questions I can if I am asked. I hold to it tentatively because it has not been "tested," but I am overwhelmed at the biblical evidence for it.

Blessings...

Adam

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 5/30/2002 8:03 PM (GMT -6)

I need to say that I don't think that "age of accountability" is by any means "stupid." I think that it could possibly be true. I just don't think it is perhaps the *best* explanation. However, that is just my humble and fallible estimation.

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/31/2002 1:25 AM (GMT -6)

Hey there, Adam,

I am willing to ask questions, and enter a conversation about death and its result; let me start near the beginning.

Gen 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion…

Gen 2:8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Gen 2:9,22,24 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the ‘tree of life’ also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the ‘tree of life’, and eat, and live for ever:

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the ‘tree of life’.

1) Would you agree I am in the likeness only and not in the strictest sense, after the same in kind, as God is? That is to say, I am not eternally conscience, that is of my past, as God is, etc.

2) Can I assume Adam, was not formed of the ground, which is of the Garden of Eden; rather that He was formed of other ground and put in the Garden of Eden?

3) Did Adam and Eve, freely eat of the Tree of Life, before obtaining the knowledge of good and evil?

4) When God said, "man is become as one of us, to know good and evil"; did He mean literally one of us, as in the Father or Son; meaning as in experience of and not merely knowing about? Not in the sense of presently, when the statement was made, rather prophetically of the Son.

5) What did God mean by, "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the ‘tree of life’, and eat, and live for ever"? More about the forever living part, than the Tree of Life for now.

In God’s Love,

Tim

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 5/31/2002 4:23 AM (GMT -6)

I'm in a hurry to get to Texas this morning, but I'll try to shortly respond to your questions. Thanks for the interaction!

1) Yes I would agree. We are not (at the moment in our fallen state, anyway) eternally conscious. However, I think that in our resurrected bodies it is quite possible that we could be pulled into that kind of eternal consciousness.

2) I think it is possible.

3) I don't think we are told whether they did or not if I remember correctly. However, it seems to read more naturally that they did not eat of it. Either way is possible though, it looks like.

4) That is a question that I just asked Dr. Boyd in an e-mail last night. I'm confused as to what "like us" means in that context. "Like us" in what way?

5) I really don't know for sure.

Sorry I couldn't help more than I could.

His…

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:11 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual