Age of Accountability

There are multiple reasons why someone like me would avoid a topic like this: (a) I really don’t like debates, especially of an emotional nature, (b) it is 100% in the realm of systematic theology

So before I get any further, let me be very clear. Yes, I believe babies and children who pass away have gone to be in the presence of Jesus. 

The why and the how and the basis…that’s the issue here.

There’s certainly no biblical author that discusses the “plan of salvation for little ones” as part of their flow of thought. We do have certain examples of “households” being saved early in the life of the church (e.g., Cornelius, the Philippian jailor), but we are not told ages or any individual conversion decisions. These passages do lend weight to the idea of children being “saved,” but questions still remain.

Some also want to point to David’s time of confession after his grievous sin with Bathsheba. The child falls ill, and David begs for miraculous healing. God says, “No.” David responds that the child will not come back to him, but David will go to him. I definitely side with those who see David as simply predicting future death. It’s possible that looking back we can see future hope and seeing loved ones, but to insert this into David’s words is a bit much.

I’ve heard scholars argue from Matt 18-19, where Jesus says the kingdom of God is made up of children, or “those like children.” It’s obviously debatable. The likely conclusion of these paragraphs is that the kingdom of God is for those with child-like faith and dependence on Jesus. We need an attitude of ultimate humility, not pride/self-sufficiency. 

If we were to argue for a so-called “age of accountability,” I don’t see any biblical texts that support such a  a concept. Sure, we have prophets talking about “those who don’t know right hand from left hand” (see the end of Jonah for a good example). This phrase is debated, and it could refer to children or just those without spiritual discernment (i.e., not open to God’s truth/revelation). 

Wouldn’t the age of accountability be different for individual children (with more or less knowledge and moral wisdom as they developed)? Has it changed throughout history? Different for the genders? We can’t pick a random age/date out of the air and label it for all people throughout all time. 

My simple point is we don’t have revelation on the issue. So I have real hesitation being dogmatic on the salvation process of infants/children. We only invented this doctrine because of our strong stance on original sin/original guilt. I believe all humans are sinners, even from conception, and that Jesus is the only source of eternal life, but those truths don’t lead to happy conclusions. I’m not going to invent doctrines that Scripture doesn’t support, though.

So how do I reach any conclusions at all? If I don’t want to dive into philosophy and systematics, how do I reach hope and joy? Easy. 

I have confidence in the goodness of God. Does that resolve all the tension? Probably not. But I would rather rely on the character of God, His mercy, kindness, and love for His creation, than try to twist His revelation to make it fit my logic. He loves children. Jesus invited them nearer to Himself on every occasion. That doesn’t mean they have earned anything or are sinless by any means. 

I don’t know at what point God’s general grace requires someone to exercise his/her own faith in response to the gospel message. And I’m not trying to cross over into other debates regarding people who have never heard the gospel (or those who are mentally challenged, etc.). I’ll leave that for the theologians (or another post). It’s probably different for unique individuals. 

If I knew all the answers, I would probably think them unfair. I would probably argue with God. I would probably doubt His grace or try to make up different rules. So I’d rather choose to rely on that He knows what’s best with this question, do my best to disciple the ones around me, and leave any and all results to Him.  

God is good

Systematic vs. Biblical Theology

Creating a system of beliefs can be intimidating enough. Reading the Bible casually can be overwhelming. Learning that there are numerous methods and approaches for these activities can stop anyone from attempting either one. This post focuses on general differences between "systematic theology" and "biblical theology." When someone first hears the terms, he/she may assume the terms imply systematic theologians are not being as biblical. This is not the case, but the approaches are distinct.

Systematic theologians gather all biblical texts that discuss a given topic and make conclusions on how the Bible understands that issue. Generally speaking, these questions are categorized under headings like sin, God, Jesus, humanity, end times, somewhat like my Theology and Big Questions page.

Biblical theology operates quite differently. (Note: both methods are necessary, and I have no intention here of mischaracterizing either one. I am definitely giving an overview). This approach does not begin with a question; rather, it allows the themes and emphases of the individual biblical authors to emerge naturally. These themes and theological ideas can often “fit” into prearranged systematic categories, but many times they cannot. 

Another facet of biblical theology that can cause frustration for students is when a biblical author contains themes or emphases that no other author does. Perhaps he discusses an idea with a slightly or quite distinct flavor than someone else. (Think the Gospels or even Paul vs the Gospels.) 

It’s okay. We understand each author was writing in a unique historical setting to an audience with particular needs (even the Gospels). Of course, there are going to be unique themes. 

My preference is to dive for the author’s intended meaning (best I can), allowing for his message to shine through, not my presupposed interpretation or theological disposition. Let him speak.

This is why I don’t do a ton of cross referencing. It’s important and can be done well. I do believe other texts can help us understand a passage in question (especially by the same author), but I don’t pull random passages to inform a word’s meaning.  

My brain doesn’t work systematically. I am not a philosopher (and systematic theologians do require philosophy, logic, etc at times to reach conclusions). Their work does provide an essential skeleton for belief systems. We need a fundamental understanding of God, the world, sin, humanity as we read the books. Yet, I choose to hold the essentials tightly (i.e., core fundamentals and what all biblical authors would wholeheartedly agree on), while allowing each individual author to use his book for whatever purpose he desires.  

Biblical theology works through a text as it stands. As we allow the author's message to surface, we may not receive answers to every question we have, but we can't impose our questions on the text while using this approach The authors weren’t writing to us (though their writings certainly benefit us). It can bring tension, but I appreciate this method more. It brings more confidence that I am seeing the text as it was intended (of course, within community and being open to my own biases and errant interpretations).