Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

The Age of Accountability


Recommended Posts

  • Members

It's kind of hard to understand what they believe about the afterlife. From the way it has been explained to me, we all go back to the creator when we die. However, those who most closely followed the law will be closets to the creator, while those that didn't follow the law will be the fartherest away. They definitely do not believe in a hell.

This is not the point though and I hate to get off topic because I think the doctrine of the age of accountability could be addressed a little better. Where are the Jerrys when you need them?


*roll eyes*

Hey, everyone, PTWILD thinks your opinion don't count.

I was just only responding to your last reply, and maybe you get something out of it. Edited by Psalms18_28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

PT is bringing up some good points here.

The Jews of OT times, of which David was one, didn't have the same concept of heaven or what happened after death that we do. It's not "OBvious" that what David spoke meant that he believed he would be joining his son in heaven someday. Such is possible but given that David wouldn't have thought of heaven as we do it's very possible David simply meant he would join his son in death.

The Bible is rather silent with regards to babies and young children. The few verses people tend to go to could be, and have been, viewed very differently by varying folks over the centuries.

What we do know is that if a person is capable of accepting Christ and they have had the opportunity but refused to accept Christ then they are lost in their sins. If they die, they will go to hell. If the Rapture occurs, they will be left on earth.

On the flipside, we know that if a person is capable of accepting Christ and has done so, they will go to heaven upon their death unless the Rapture occurs first and they will be called up to meet Christ then.

As for all others we are not given a clear and direct statement concerning them. We can trust that whatever God does with them it will be right and just.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

JOB 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
JOB 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

I don't know what the Jews you speak of believe, what is important is Bible Teachings. Even JOB of the Old Testament knew that even though he would did, that he would see God with his own eyes, that is he would go to heaven.

There is also very much wirtten in the Bible that assures that David is also in heaven.

If, that is if, there is no heaven, them the Bible cannot be trusted, for it promises that thsoe who are saved, will abide in heaven.

Even Paul teached this.

2Co 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

Yes, he knew that at death he woudl enter heaven.

In fact, all who are saved, heaven is already their home.

Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

Yes, its a fact, Old Testament people were saved just like us, keeping the law never saved a soul, by the way, to be saved by the law one had to keep the whole law, there was only one who could do that, Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wasn't implying that David or others are not in heaven. Heaven wasn't completely revealed to the ancient Jews. There was a short study at church some time back which touched on the ancient beliefs of the Jews. It wasn't that they didn't believe they would see God, they just didn't understand what that meant, what form it would take. That's what Jewish history says of themselves anyway.

Much of what we know today about heaven, the resurection and the next life were either not known or not common knowledge to the ancient Jews. Even what the Jews knew of the coming Christ were misunderstood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wasn't implying that David or others are not in heaven. Heaven wasn't completely revealed to the ancient Jews. There was a short study at church some time back which touched on the ancient beliefs of the Jews. It wasn't that they didn't believe they would see God, they just didn't understand what that meant, what form it would take. That's what Jewish history says of themselves anyway.

Much of what we know today about heaven, the resurection and the next life were either not known or not common knowledge to the ancient Jews. Even what the Jews knew of the coming Christ were misunderstood.


Exactly. Everything we impute to the Old Testament references to the afterlife are based on what we know from the New Testament. The fact of the matter is that Jewish people, even today, do not believe the same as we do. They still use the same OT that we use and are witness to who we believe to be the Messiah, but that doesn't change the beliefs they've held since the beginning. We know that David, JOB, Elijah . . . are in heaven. The Jews merely believe they have returned to the Creator, without any identifying beliefs of excatly what that is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Exactly. Everything we impute to the Old Testament references to the afterlife are based on what we know from the New Testament. The fact of the matter is that Jewish people, even today, do not believe the same as we do. They still use the same OT that we use and are witness to who we believe to be the Messiah, but that doesn't change the beliefs they've held since the beginning. We know that David, JOB, Elijah . . . are in heaven. The Jews merely believe they have returned to the Creator, without any identifying beliefs of excatly what that is.


That about sums up the teaching from the Jewish history of this issue.

Jews today are still awaiting the Christ who they still believe will be a great leader that will restore Israel to glory and defeat her enemies.

This, and other reasons, is why I don't like it when people talk about the "Judeo-Christian" heritage of America. That's a lie. America has a CHRISTIAN heritage. The "Judeo" view is much different from Christian and not what American heritage was established upon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That about sums up the teaching from the Jewish history of this issue.

Jews today are still awaiting the Christ who they still believe will be a great leader that will restore Israel to glory and defeat her enemies.

This, and other reasons, is why I don't like it when people talk about the "Judeo-Christian" heritage of America. That's a lie. America has a CHRISTIAN heritage. The "Judeo" view is much different from Christian and not what American heritage was established upon.


I've never really understood the whole Judeo-Christian references either. If you'll remember from your Bible, Christianity is a rejection of Judaism. Plus, I don't believe we had a single founding father that was Jewish. The beliefs we share with the Jewish people (which is basically only an adherence to the ten commandments and the belief in a messiah), we also share with Muslims. Much of it we also share with almost every other religion. Another thing that gets me is some people's blind support of the Nation of Israel, as if it were the same thing as the tribe of David.

Forgive me if I keep belaboring the topic, but does anyone know of the origins of the doctrine of the age of accountability (other than the previously discussed assumptions surrounding 2nd Sam.)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

PTWILD,
The term "age of accountability" is not in the Bible, but I believe the principle is there. Would you agree, based on what it says, that some point in time, these children were not accountable because they had no knowledge of good and evil........

Deu 1:39: Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.


Lets forget the word "Heaven" for just a moment and focus on the concept OK?: King David knew that he would "dwell in the house of the Lord FOR EVER", correct?. And "the house of the Lord ..FOR EVER" must be the ETERNAL dwelling of the Lord, correct? When David said "I shall go to him", doesn't it stand to reason that if the place King David was going to end up was "the house of the Lord...FOR EVER" then the little baby must be there"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

PTWILD,
The term "age of accountability" is not in the Bible, but I believe the principle is there. Would you agree, based on what it says, that some point in time, these children were not accountable because they had no knowledge of good and evil........

Deu 1:39: Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.


Lets forget the word "Heaven" for just a moment and focus on the concept OK?: King David knew that he would "dwell in the house of the Lord FOR EVER", correct?. And "the house of the Lord ..FOR EVER" must be the ETERNAL dwelling of the Lord, correct? When David said "I shall go to him", doesn't it stand to reason that if the place King David was going to end up was "the house of the Lord...FOR EVER" then the little baby must be there"?

:amen::amen::amen::amen:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

PTWILD,
The term "age of accountability" is not in the Bible, but I believe the principle is there. Would you agree, based on what it says, that some point in time, these children were not accountable because they had no knowledge of good and evil........

Deu 1:39: Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.


Lets forget the word "Heaven" for just a moment and focus on the concept OK?: King David knew that he would "dwell in the house of the Lord FOR EVER", correct?. And "the house of the Lord ..FOR EVER" must be the ETERNAL dwelling of the Lord, correct? When David said "I shall go to him", doesn't it stand to reason that if the place King David was going to end up was "the house of the Lord...FOR EVER" then the little baby must be there"?


The view you put forth may be correct. However, the view that says this passage is pointing out that the younger ones who had no voice in whether to go into the Promised Land or not, the same ones the rest of the tribe complained that would become the prey of the giants, they it would be that inherited the land, not the older ones who refused to go forth.

With regards to the passage in 2nd Sam, your view may be correct, however the view that David was speaking of death may also be correct.

We can't know for certain which view, or perhaps even another, is correct.

Whatever David meant and whatever the full meaning of the Deut. passage is, I trust that God will do what is right and just babies, youngsters and all people for that matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The view you put forth may be correct. However, the view that says this passage is pointing out that the younger ones who had no voice in whether to go into the Promised Land or not, the same ones the rest of the tribe complained that would become the prey of the giants, they it would be that inherited the land, not the older ones who refused to go forth.

With regards to the passage in 2nd Sam, your view may be correct, however the view that David was speaking of death may also be correct.

We can't know for certain which view, or perhaps even another, is correct.

Whatever David meant and whatever the full meaning of the Deut. passage is, I trust that God will do what is right and just babies, youngsters and all people for that matter.


My point in quoting the Deuteronomy passage was that they had no knowledge between good and evil,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

PTWILD,
The term "age of accountability" is not in the Bible, but I believe the principle is there. Would you agree, based on what it says, that some point in time, these children were not accountable because they had no knowledge of good and evil........

Deu 1:39: Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.


Lets forget the word "Heaven" for just a moment and focus on the concept OK?: King David knew that he would "dwell in the house of the Lord FOR EVER", correct?. And "the house of the Lord ..FOR EVER" must be the ETERNAL dwelling of the Lord, correct? When David said "I shall go to him", doesn't it stand to reason that if the place King David was going to end up was "the house of the Lord...FOR EVER" then the little baby must be there"?


No, I don't agree that the principle is there. The bolded portion is not even talking about death, but entering into a certain area. And even if it were referring to heaven, our ability to ascertain good from evil has nothing to do with our ability to form faith in a risen Savior. To David, "the house of the Lord" is merely going back to the Lord. Of course he would have thought the baby had returned to be with the Lord, as they (Jews) believe everyone returns to the Lord eventually. There is no heaven or hell, we all go to the same place, with those that keep the law being closer to God than those that did not.

I agree with John in that I trust that God is merciful and reasonable. However, I do not see an evidence for supporting this idea of an "age of accountability." It seems a doctrine of man as much as any.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My point in quoting the Deuteronomy passage was that they had no knowledge between good and evil,


Some believe the reference to having no knowledge between good and evil referred to the fact they were not allowed to make a decision about whether or not to enter the Promised Land. Therefore, they had no knowledge and no say about the matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it is also important to remember that the ancient Church and the Bible both teach that we are all BORN sinners, destined for hell. There is no way to get back to the father other than through the Lord Jesus Christ. I can't find a single instance in which a person was born assured of salvation, despite not going through Christ, so long as he or she died before a reaching a certain level of mental development. And if this alternate route were possible, then that means there are two ways to the Father and that faith is not necessary. Some might conclude that it would be better to die in infancy with a free ticket, than to grow to mental maturity and face the challenges of faith.

I know this is a touchy subject and it is only compounded by the fact that the Church nor the Bible provides a clear resolute teaching. Our reason and our sympathies beg us to believe that God will spare our children. However, we can't escape the fact that a little baby less than a day old is bound by sin just as an 80 year old lost man lying on his death bed. The only thing that makes sense is faith. Just have faith that it all works out in a just and reasonable manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it is also important to remember that the ancient Church and the Bible both teach that we are all BORN sinners, destined for hell. There is no way to get back to the father other than through the Lord Jesus Christ. I can't find a single instance in which a person was born assured of salvation, despite not going through Christ, so long as he or she died before a reaching a certain level of mental development. And if this alternate route were possible, then that means there are two ways to the Father and that faith is not necessary. Some might conclude that it would be better to die in infancy with a free ticket, than to grow to mental maturity and face the challenges of faith.

I know this is a touchy subject and it is only compounded by the fact that the Church nor the Bible provides a clear resolute teaching. Our reason and our sympathies beg us to believe that God will spare our children. However, we can't escape the fact that a little baby less than a day old is bound by sin just as an 80 year old lost man lying on his death bed. The only thing that makes sense is faith. Just have faith that it all works out in a just and reasonable manner.


There have been cases over the years where people have killed their own children, and sometimes others, because they want to make sure they go to heaven.

Scripture tells us that there is only ONE way to heaven, and that is through Jesus.

Suzy often brings up the possibility that children could have a special area of heaven where they go and then during the Millenium perhaps they will be put back on earth where they will have the opportunity to accept or reject Christ. Of course the Bible says nothing about this, but it's a reasonable theory.

It will be interesting to learn, after we are in heaven, why the Scriptures are so silent on this topic. That is, if God chooses to tell us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...