The ONLY Biblical answer to The Age of Accountability

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The following is an essay written several years ago by a poster here that went by the user name "Lion" (if memory serves me correctly!). He was a member of Bob Enyart's congregation at the time and may still be a member of that church. The point being that I am not the author of what follows but submit it here for your consideration and comment. Also, I copied this from a Word document so I'm not sure whether the formatting will be correct. I'll correct formatting errors as I find them....



The ONLY Biblical answer to The Age of Accountability



This is a bit long, but I believe it answers most of the questions. My wife, Becky, is the one who first pointed out this theory and then we worked together to research it.

I have battled Bob Enyart, as well as most of Denver Bible Church on this topic for over two years now. Bob, agreed that if the age of accountability was twenty in the Old Testament, that it would not change in the New Testament. However, he doesn't believe in the twenty-year age of accountability, opting instead for the varied age of accountability. When I debated him on this topic, his only response was that he believes that when God is stating twenty to be the age where one acquires the knowledge of good and evil that it is just a figure of speech. He had no biblical material to back up his statement, other than showing other figures of speech in the Bible. I found it to be a very weak argument, especially in light of the numerous times God uses twenty as the age of responsibility in the Bible. As well as the scientific data, which shows, the human body (and more importantly-the brain) does not fully develop until around twenty. However the subject is not closed and we continue to debate.

The biggest problem I see people having with this theory is that they became Christians before the age of twenty, or they know of people that became Christians before they were twenty. However, the Age of Accountability doesn't limit to someone becoming a Christian before the age of twenty (IE Christian means a follower of Christ), but rather that they are just not sealed before the age of twenty, when they are required to make a decision. A boy may fall in love with a girl when he is twelve but can't get married until he is eighteen. A boy may learn how to drive a car at age nine, but isn't legally allowed to drive until he is sixteen. A child loves God when he is very little, but God does not allow him to make an eternal decision until he is twenty.

I'm sure there will be numerous questions beyond this, so let's get started.

Oh, and if it turns out to be wrong, I can always use the Adam Defense-"It was my wife's idea".

Thesis on Biblical Age of Accountability


What is meant by the term “age of accountability”?

Most Christians who believe in an age of accountability would state that it is an age at which one becomes accountable for ones’ actions before God.

What is the basis for this belief?

One of the strongest Biblical passages in support of this argument is Paul’s statement in Romans 7:

Rom. 7:9-11 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.

Here Paul explains that he was alive once, meaning that he was alive to God, before he understood sin and its full ramifications. He further states that when sin revived in him with the knowledge of the law he fell under its power and died to God.

So, what then, is the age at which one becomes accountable to God?

Most Christians would state that they believe that this age varies from individual to individual, ranging from very young (I know of at least one pastor who believes his son was saved, meaning eternally sealed, at the age of five) to around twelve or thirteen years of age.

However there is an opposing viewpoint that believes God has decreed twenty years as the age when one becomes accountable to Him.

Biblical Evidence



In support of varied age theory

chirp—chirp—chirp…(sound of crickets chirping alone in the scary night)

There is no biblical evidence that we know of in support of a varied age of accountability.

The evidence most commonly cited for this view is that it “seems right.”


In support of twenty year age theory

Num. 14:29-32 ‘The carcasses of you who have complained against Me shall fall in this wilderness, all of you who were numbered, according to your entire number, from twenty years old and above. Except for Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun, you shall by no means enter the land which I swore I would make you dwell in. But your little ones, whom you said would be victims, I will bring in, and they shall know the land which you have despised. But as for you, your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness.

Num. 32:11-12 ‘Surely none of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and above, shall see the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because they have not wholly followed Me, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh, the Kenizzite, and Joshua the son of Nun, for they have wholly followed the LORD.’

Deut. 1:390 ‘Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Notice that God is stating that the little ones and children are those below the age of twenty. God states that these do not yet have the knowledge of good and evil.

Verses that demonstrate the age at which a person is accountable for making atonement to the LORD:

THE HOLY HALF SHEKEL (We will get into the great importance of this later in the argument-but not in this post)
Ex. 30:13-16 “This is what everyone among those who are numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (a shekel is twenty gerahs). The half-shekel shall be an offering to the LORD. Everyone included among those who are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering to the LORD. The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when you give an offering to the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves. And you shall take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves.”

Notice that this is a personal offering for atonement (a ransom), which applies only to those twenty and above.

From Nelson’s study Bible: The term ransom is related to the words for atonement and propitiation. The idea is to pay a price for one’s life. The Israelites had to acknowledge that their lives were from God and governed by Him by giving Him an offering of money. Every male (twenty and above) was to provide a half-shekel ransom.


Other Verses that show twenty as being the age of responsibility

WAR: Num. 1:3 “from twenty years old and above — all who are able to go to war in Israel. You and Aaron shall number them by their armies. (one of sixteen verses stating the age of twenty as being suitable for going to war)

SERVICE: 2Chr. 31:17 and to the priests who were written in the genealogy according to their father’s house, and to the Levites from twenty years old and up according to their work, by their divisions
Ezra 3:8 Now in the second month of the second year of their coming to the house of God at Jerusalem, Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the rest of their brethren the priests and the Levites, and all those who had come out of the captivity to Jerusalem, began work and appointed the Levites from twenty years old and above to oversee the work of the house of the LORD.

ANCESTRY: Num. 1:18 and they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month; and they recited their ancestry by families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and above, each one individually
(thirty two verses support the idea of twenty being the age of responsibility in one way or another)


Extra-biblical evidence for twenty year age theory
(these are excerpts - see attachments for further information on these studies.)​



World Book Encyclopedia

Most human beings reach full maturity only between 18 and 25 years of age.

Strictly speaking, a child is anyone who is not yet an adult. According to this definition, childhood extends from birth until sometime past the age of 20--the age at which most people reach their full adult physical growth.

Teenage Brain: A work in progress (NIHM)

While this work suggests a wave of brain white matter development that flows from front to back, animal, functional brain imaging and postmortem studies have suggested that gray matter maturation flows in the opposite direction, with the frontal lobes not fully maturing until young adulthood. To confirm this in living humans, the UCLA researchers compared MRI scans of young adults, 23-30, with those of teens, 12-16.4 They looked for signs of myelin, which would imply more mature, efficient connections, within gray matter. As expected, areas of the frontal lobe showed the largest differences between young adults and teens. This increased myelination in the adult frontal cortex likely relates to the maturation of cognitive processing and other "executive" functions. Parietal and temporal areas mediating spatial, sensory, auditory and language functions appeared largely mature in the teen brain. The observed late maturation of the frontal lobe conspicuously coincides with the typical age-of-onset of schizophrenia—late teens, early twenties—which, as noted earlier, is characterized by impaired "executive" functioning.

As teens grow older, their brain activity during this task tends to shift to the frontal lobe, leading to more reasoned perceptions and improved performance. Similarly, the researchers saw a shift in activation from the temporal lobe to the frontal lobe during a language skills task, as teens got older. These functional changes paralleled structural changes in temporal lobe white matter.


EEG maturation in monozygotic and dizygotic twins. A longitudinal study of 200 twin pairs

Regardless of the many similarities to brain wave patterns of adults, the immature EEG nonetheless exhibits unique characteristics during infancy, childhood and adolescence. These characteristics show distinct inter-individual differences, change continuously over time, and by the age of 20 years they achieve their final form.

The Facts About 16-Year-Old Drivers

They're more likely to be single vehicle crashes. Such crashes account for 44 percent of fatal crashes involving 16-year-old drivers compared with 37 percent among 17-19 year-old drivers and 29 percent among drivers 20-49 years old.

WHAT ARE WISDOM TEETH?

Wisdom teeth, or third molars, are the last teeth to develop and appear in the mouth. They are called "wisdom teeth" because they usually appear during a person’s late teens or early twenties, which has been called the "age of wisdom." The normal position of wisdom teeth is behind the upper and lower second, or 12-year, molars.

Arguments against twenty year age theory:



Argument: Christian dogma (traditional Christian thought of varied age theory).

Response: Traditional view is often in error, IE mixing of law and grace/knowledge of God etc. Evidence outweighs tradition.

Argument: Supposed common sense.

Response: Traditional view states that some children as young as five are capable of making a decision in regards to their eternal destiny, even though no responsible adult would allow them to enter a binding legal contract of any sort.

Argument: Criminals such as Klebold and Harris could be in heaven.

Response: (1) Where children that have not reached the age of accountability go after physical death is a separate issue.

(2) Christians that think that God is not capable of deciding righteously where these children should go should refer to 1Cor 4:6/1Tim 3:6

Argument: Biblical statements in support of twenty-year age theory are an exaggeration to make the point that only those without the knowledge of good and evil will enter the Promised Land.

Response: (1) This argument proves the point that those under twenty did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil.

(2) This argument has no biblical support and is defeated by other biblical passages showing the age of twenty as a sign of maturity, (war, service, atonement, etc.)

Importance of age of accountability:



Responsibility of Parents toward their children:

Prov. 22:4-6 By humility and the fear of the LORD Are riches and honor and life. Thorns and snares are in the way of the perverse; He who guards his soul will be far from them. Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.

Deut.6:5-7 “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.

Parents have an awesome responsibility to their children. That is to teach them in the ways of the Lord. Without a correct knowledge concerning the age of accountability many parents might relax their teaching and control on a child before it is right to do so. As a police officer I see many parents who allow their teenage children far greater control of their lives than they are ready for. The results are usually disastrous. Sometimes deadly. If a parent believes that his child was saved at the age of five and then later in his teenage years he becomes rebellious, the parent could always say (and I’ve heard it said), “well at least he’s a Christian”. The results of this type of thinking may well be eternally fatal.

Often a child that grows up as a Christian turns against God when he reaches his later teens and early twenties, (I did), perhaps due in part to parents that thought their children were safe and had accepted the gift of salvation. If we, as parents, realize that our children cannot make such an important and eternal commitment until they are fully mature, then it is natural to take greater measures in teaching and instructing them in the ways of the Lord.


2Tim3:14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

We must be diligent in raising our children in a Godly atmosphere. Armed with the truth of God and the knowledge of His Book and loving personality, our children will have the correct instruction in making their choice to humble themselves and say “I do” to God when they reach maturity.


Attachments:

World Book Encyclopedia


Human beings live longer and develop more slowly than other primates. The human life span varies from an average of about 40 years in many developing countries to more than 70 years in most industrial nations. A human infant is born completely helpless and depends on its parents for many years. Most human beings reach full maturity only between 18 and 25 years of age. Slow growth and development allow for a much longer period of learning and brain growth than exists in any other species.

Strictly speaking, a child is anyone who is not yet an adult. According to this definition, childhood extends from birth until sometime past the age of 20--the age at which most people reach their full adult physical growth. However, childhood is usually considered to be a much shorter period. In most developed countries, it is regarded as one of three stages that people pass through from birth to adulthood. The other stages are infancy and adolescence. Infancy extends from birth to about 18 months of age. Adolescence begins between the ages of about 10 and 13 and lasts to adulthood. Childhood is the period between infancy and adolescence. In some developing countries, people are considered to be adults after they reach the age of 12 or 13, and adolescence is not regarded as a distinct stage of development.

Teenage Brain: A work in progress (NIMH)



New imaging studies are revealing—for the first time—patterns of brain development that extend into the teenage years. Although scientists don't know yet what accounts for the observed changes, they may parallel a pruning process that occurs early in life that appears to follow the principle of "use-it-or-lose-it:" neural connections, or synapses, that get exercised are retained, while those that don't are lost. At least, this is what studies of animals' developing visual systems suggest. While it's known that both genes and environment play major roles in shaping early brain development, science still has much to learn about the relative influence of experience versus genes on the later maturation of the brain. Animal studies support a role for experience in late development, but no animal species undergoes anything comparable to humans' protracted childhood and adolescence. Nor is it yet clear whether experience actually creates new neurons and synapses, or merely establishes transitory functional changes. Nonetheless, it's tempting to interpret the new findings as empowering teens to protect and nurture their brain as a work in progress.

The newfound appreciation of the dynamic nature of the teen brain is emerging from MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) studies that scan a child's brain every two years, as he or she grows up. Individual brains differ enough that only broad generalizations can be made from comparisons of different individuals at different ages. But following the same brains as they mature allows scientists a much finer-grained view into developmental changes. In the first such longitudinal study of 145 children and adolescents, reported in l999, NIMH's Dr. Judith Rapoport and colleagues were surprised to discover a second wave of overproduction of gray matter, the thinking part of the brain—neurons and their branch-like extensions—just prior to puberty.1 Possibly related to the influence of surging sex hormones, this thickening peaks at around age 11 in girls, 12 in boys, after which the gray matter actually thins some.

Prior to this study, research had shown that the brain overproduced gray matter for a brief period in early development—in the womb and for about the first 18 months of life—and then underwent just one bout of pruning. Researchers are now confronted with structural changes that occur much later in adolescence. The teen's gray matter waxes and wanes in different functional brain areas at different times in development. For example, the gray matter growth spurt just prior to puberty predominates in the frontal lobe, the seat of "executive functions"—planning, impulse control and reasoning. In teens affected by a rare, childhood onset form of schizophrenia that impairs these functions, the MRI scans revealed four times as much gray matter loss in the frontal lobe as normally occurs.2 Unlike gray matter, the brain's white matter—wire-like fibers that establish neurons' long-distance connections between brain regions—thickens progressively from birth in humans. A layer of insulation called myelin progressively envelops these nerve fibers, making them more efficient, just like insulation on electric wires improves their conductivity.

Advancements in MRI image analysis are providing new insights into how the brain develops. UCLA's Dr. Arthur Toga and colleagues turned the NIMH team's MRI scan data into 4-D time-lapse animations of children's brains morphing as they grow up—the 4th dimension being rate-of-change.3 Researchers report a wave of white matter growth that begins at the front of the brain in early childhood, moves rearward, and then subsides after puberty. Striking growth spurts can be seen from ages 6 to 13 in areas connecting brain regions specialized for language and understanding spatial relations, the temporal and parietal lobes. This growth drops off sharply after age 12, coinciding with the end of a critical period for learning languages.

While this work suggests a wave of brain white matter development that flows from front to back, animal, functional brain imaging and postmortem studies have suggested that gray matter maturation flows in the opposite direction, with the frontal lobes not fully maturing until young adulthood. To confirm this in living humans, the UCLA researchers compared MRI scans of young adults, 23-30, with those of teens, 12-16.4 They looked for signs of myelin, which would imply more mature, efficient connections, within gray matter. As expected, areas of the frontal lobe showed the largest differences between young adults and teens. This increased myelination in the adult frontal cortex likely relates to the maturation of cognitive processing and other "executive" functions. Parietal and temporal areas mediating spatial, sensory, auditory and language functions appeared largely mature in the teen brain. The observed late maturation of the frontal lobe conspicuously coincides with the typical age-of-onset of schizophrenia—late teens, early twenties—which, as noted earlier, is characterized by impaired "executive" functioning.

Another series of MRI studies is shedding light on how teens may process emotions differently than adults. Using functional MRI (fMRI), a team led by Dr. Deborah Yurgelun-Todd at Harvard's McLean Hospital scanned subjects' brain activity while they identified emotions on pictures of faces displayed on a computer screen.5 Young teens, who characteristically perform poorly on the task, activated the amygdala, a brain center that mediates fear and other "gut" reactions, more than the frontal lobe. As teens grow older, their brain activity during this task tends to shift to the frontal lobe, leading to more reasoned perceptions and improved performance. Similarly, the researchers saw a shift in activation from the temporal lobe to the frontal lobe during a language skills task, as teens got older. These functional changes paralleled structural changes in temporal lobe white matter.

While these studies have shown remarkable changes that occur in the brain during the teen years, they also demonstrate what every parent can confirm: the teenage brain is a very complicated and dynamic arena, one that is not easily understood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For More Information
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Office of Communications and Public Liaison
Public Inquiries: (301) 443-4513
Media Inquiries: (301) 443-4536
E-mail: nimhinfo@nih.gov
Web site: http://www.nimh.nih.gov
Child and adolescent mental health information:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/childmenu.cfm
-----------------------------------
All material in this fact sheet is in the public domain and may be copied or reproduced without permission from the Institute. Citation of the source is appreciated.
NIH Publication No. 01-4929
-----------------------------------
References
1 Giedd JN, Blumenthal J, Jeffries NO, et al. Brain development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 1999; 2(10): 861-3.

2 Rapoport JL, Giedd JN, Blumenthal J, et al. Progressive cortical change during adolescence in childhood-onset schizophrenia. A longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1999; 56(7): 649-54.

3 Thompson PM, Giedd JN, Woods RP, et al. Growth patterns in the developing brain detected by using continuum mechanical tensor maps. Nature, 2000; 404(6774): 190-3.

4 Sowell ER, Thompson PM, Holmes CJ, et al. In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neuroscience, 1999; 2(10): 859-61.

5 Baird AA, Gruber SA, Fein DA, et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of facial affect recognition in children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1999; 38(2): 195-9.

Updated: January 01, 2001

Hole’s Human Anatomy & Physiology



When a myelinated nerve fiber is stimulated to threshold, an action potential occurs at the trigger zone. This causes an electrical current to flow away from the trigger zone through the cytoplasm of the axon. As this local current reaches the first node, it stimulates the membrane to its threshold level. An action potential occurs there sending an electric current to the next node. Consequently, a nerve impulse traveling along a myelinated nerve fiber appears to jump from node to node. This type of impulse conduction, called saltatory conduction, is many times faster than conduction on an un-myelinated nerve fiber.


EEG maturation in monozygotic and dizygotic twins.
A longitudinal study of 200 twin pairs

Stassen H.H., Katsanis J., Malone S., Iacono W.G., Propping P. and Hell D.

In a large twin-family study comprising EEG recordings of 919 subjects, we applied methods of quantitative genetics to explore the trait-like qualities of EEG parameters, and to quantify the proportions of phentotypic variance that can be attributed to genetic and environmental influences. Our study confirmed previous findings regarding the existence of strong heritable factors that contribute a major proportion to the inter- individual variance in human brain wave patterns. Quantitatively, we found for major EEG parameters a heritability estimate of h^2=0.75 independently derived using two different methods; through an analysis of (a) the parent-offspring EEG similarity and (b) the difference in within-pair EEG similarity between monozygotic and dizygotic twins. The heritability estimates were consistent across the lateral EEG channels, whereas the central channel did not fully fit this picture of overall consistency.

Regardless of the many similarities to brain wave patterns of adults, the immature EEG nonetheless exhibits unique characteristics during infancy, childhood and adolescence. These characteristics show distinct inter-individual differences, change continuously over time, and by the age of 20 years they achieve their final form. Since the rhythm of EEG maturation is determined by genetic factors, developmental EEG changes appear to proceed at the same rate for identical twins, whereas the developmental synchronies are much lower within pairs of fraternal twins. Given these empirical findings, we expected that the parent-offspring EEG similarity will continuously increase during adolescence, and that at each stage of development the within-pair EEG similarity of MZ and DZ twins will be in magnitude identical to that of adult twins.

Our results did not uniformly support these hypotheses. While the within-pair MZ similarity of all EEG parameters under investigation was as high as that of adult twins and the within- pair DZ similarities varied, as expected, from complete similarity (to the extent of being identical twins) to complete dissimilarity (no familial resemblance at all), the parent- offspring EEG similarities were, yet unexpectedly, for the frequency-related EEG parameters as high as those of adult offsprings. Only for the power-related EEG parameters the parent-offspring similarity was found to be significantly lower in the adolescent-offspring sample than in the adult-offspring sample. These findings suggest that the development of brain wave patterns during brain maturation does not uniformly involve all EEG characteristics. For example, the central pacemaker system of alpha frequency, which is hypothesized to be located in the thalamus, does not appear to change its function during adolescence as indicated by the fact that the parent-offspring similarity was identical in the adolescent- offspring and the adult-offspring samples.

When we attempted to analyse the birth-cohorts separately in order to quantify developmental changes of EEG parameters during adolescence, our sample turned out to be not large enough to conclusively address this issue. This lack of sensitivity, however, was mostly due to the chosen method of approach in which the large inter-individual variation is likely to obscure subtle changes over time. We hope to overcome this problem by using repeated assessments on the same subjects at 3-year intervals so that each individual can be used as his or her own reference. The present study was not suited to examine non-shared environmental impacts that have recently been reported to be the most important environmental influences on normal and pathologic development. Nonetheless, we think that the EEG paradigm could represent a sound basis not only for developing the methodological framework in this field but also for investigating the extent to which twins treated differently by their parents may differ in their development.

Key words: EEG, genetics, maturation, twins, high risk cases

Feedback
If you have questions or comments concerning the research projects listed above send e-mail to one of the following addresses:

* k454910@bli.unizh.ch -General information relevant to this research project.


The Facts About 16-Year-Old Drivers



Until recently, researchers have usually studied 16-year-old drivers' crashes along with those of 17-19 year-olds. A special report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety focused specifically on problems associated with 16-year-olds getting behind the wheel. The facts show that the per-mile crash rate is much higher among 16-year-olds than any other age -- higher even than among 17, 18 or 19-year-olds.

How do fatal crashes involving 16-year-olds differ?

They're more likely to be single vehicle crashes. Such crashes account for 44 percent of fatal crashes involving 16-year-old drivers compared with 37 percent among 17-19 year-old drivers and 29 percent among drivers 20-49 years old.

Speeding is a common factor. Police reports indicate that 37 percent of all 16-year-old drivers in fatal crashes were reportedly speeding or, if not exceeding the limit, going too fast for road conditions. This proportion drops steadily with age. Thirty three percent of drivers 17-19 years old and 23 percent of drivers 20-49 years old were reportedly speeding when their fatal crashes occurred.

Crashes involving 16-year-old drivers kill more teen passengers than crashes involving 17, 18 or 19-year-old drivers. This is true even though 16-year-olds don't drive as many miles as older teenagers.

One positive distinction of fatal crashes involving 16- year-olds is the use of alcohol. Only 5 percent of 16-year-old drivers killed in crashes had blood alcohol concentrations of 0.10 percent or more. This compares with 28 percent for older teenagers and 48 percent for drivers 20-49 years old.

Are 16-year-olds getting too much freedom too soon? If so, what is the answer?

Although drivers education courses are important, research shows no crash reductions because of high school driver education. One effective approach is to deny driving privileges to 16-year-olds. Many European countries and three Canadian provinces make teens wait to get licenses.

Another approach is Graduated Licensing. This involves limiting or restricting 16-year-olds driving, and lifting controls one by one until a young driver "graduates" to full driving privileges. Sixteen year-olds can't learn it all overnight. It takes time to develop the maturity and experience to make responsible decisions behind the wheel.

So far, not one U.S. state has a full-fledged graduated program, but interest in the idea is on the increase. According to Allan Williams, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety senior vice president, "Research clearly shows graduated licensing should be seriously considered by policymakers as a way to save the lives of 16-year-old drivers and the teen passengers they transport."


WISDOM TEETH

What are Wisdom Teeth?



Wisdom teeth, or third molars, are the last teeth to develop and appear in the mouth. They are called "wisdom teeth" because they usually appear during a person's late teens or early twenties, which has been called the "age of wisdom". The normal position of wisdom teeth is behind the upper and lower second, or 12-year, molars. Many times the jaws of modern humans are not normally large enough to accommodate the four wisdom teeth. This is why wisdom teeth cause more problems than any other teeth in the mouth. In fact, for nine out of ten people at least one wisdom tooth remains underneath the gum due to lack of space in the mouth.

Dictionary Information: Definition Wisdom
Thesaurus: Wisdom
Description and Meaning: Wisdom, Noble Wisdom, Transcendental Wisdom
Wisdom (Wis"dom) (-ducr/m), n.
[AS. wi¯sdo¯m. See Wise, a., and -dom.]
1. The quality of being wise; knowledge, and the capacity to make due use of it; knowledge of the best ends and the best means; discernment and judgment; discretion; sagacity; skill; dexterity. "We speak also not in wise words of man's wisdom, but in the doctrine of the spirit." Wyclif (1 Cor. ii. 13). " Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding." Job xxviii. 28. "It is hoped that our rulers will act with dignity and wisdom that they will yield everything to reason, and refuse everything to force." Ames. "Common sense in an uncommon degree is what the world calls wisdom." Coleridge.
2. The results of wise judgments; scientific or practical truth; acquired knowledge; erudition. "Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds." Acts vii. 22.
Synonyms -- Prudence; knowledge. Wisdom, Prudence, Knowledge. Wisdom has been defined to be "the use of the best means for attaining the best ends." "We conceive," says Whewell, " prudence as the virtue by which we select right means for given ends, while wisdom implies the selection of right ends as well as of right means." Hence, wisdom implies the union of high mental and moral excellence. Prudence (that is, providence, or forecast) is of a more negative character; it rather consists in avoiding danger than in taking decisive measures for the accomplishment of an object. Sir Robert Walpole was in many respects a prudent statesman, but he was far from being a wise one. Burke has said that prudence, when carried too far, degenerates into a "reptile virtue," which is the more dangerous for its plausible appearance. Knowledge, a more comprehensive term, signifies the simple apprehension of facts or relations. "In strictness of language," says Paley, " there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom; wisdom always supposing action, and action directed by it." "Knowledge and wisdom, far from being one, Have ofttimes no connection. Knowledge dwells In heads replete with thoughts of other men; Wisdom, in minds attentive to their own. Knowledge, a rude, unprofitable mass, The mere materials with which wisdom builds, Till smoothed, and squared, and fitted to its place, Does but encumber whom it seems to enrich. Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much; Wisdom is humble that he knows no more." Cowper.
-- Wisdom tooth, the last, or back, tooth of the full set on each half of each jaw in man; -- familiarly so called, because appearing comparatively late, after the person may be supposed to have arrived at the age of wisdom. See the Note under Tooth, 1.

Encyclopedia Index
Authors Encyclopedia | Encyclopedia of the Self
Classical Authors Index | Classical Authors Directory | Classical Authors Library
Contemporary Writers Forums | Classical Authors Forums
Visitor Agreement | Copyright © 1999 - 2001 Mark Zimmerman. All Rights Reserve
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The ONLY Biblical answer to The Age of Accountability



This is a bit long, but I believe it answers most of the questions. My wife, Becky, is the one who first pointed out this theory and then we worked together to research it.

I have battled Bob Enyart, as well as most of Denver Bible Church on this topic for over two years now. Bob, agreed that if the age of accountability was twenty in the Old Testament, that it would not change in the New Testament. However, he doesn't believe in the twenty-year age of accountability, opting instead for the varied age of accountability. When I debated him on this topic, his only response was that he believes that when God is stating twenty to be the age where one acquires the knowledge of good and evil that it is just a figure of speech. He had no biblical material to back up his statement, other than showing other figures of speech in the Bible. I found it to be a very weak argument, especially in light of the numerous times God uses twenty as the age of responsibility in the Bible. As well as the scientific data, which shows, the human body (and more importantly-the brain) does not fully develop until around twenty. However the subject is not closed and we continue to debate.

The biggest problem I see people having with this theory is that they became Christians before the age of twenty, or they know of people that became Christians before they were twenty. However, the Age of Accountability doesn't limit to someone becoming a Christian before the age of twenty (IE Christian means a follower of Christ), but rather that they are just not sealed before the age of twenty, when they are required to make a decision. A boy may fall in love with a girl when he is twelve but can't get married until he is eighteen. A boy may learn how to drive a car at age nine, but isn't legally allowed to drive until he is sixteen. A child loves God when he is very little, but God does not allow him to make an eternal decision until he is twenty.

I'm sure there will be numerous questions beyond this, so let's get started.

Oh, and if it turns out to be wrong, I can always use the Adam Defense-"It was my wife's idea".
This first section of the essay makes me miss Bob Enyart so much! I wish I could have heard Bob's argument! I wish I could call him right now and ask him about this topic. I still can't believe he's gone. :(

I'm reminded of when I was first exposed to Bob Enyart, watching his nightly TV show when I lived in Tulsa. It was so radically different from any sort of Christianity I had ever seen before, not to mention more compelling and effective. Nothing like it would be allowed on the air today.

Back then, I was in my 20's and was still very much interested in understanding why different churches teach quite different things, all while claiming to be "bible believing" churches. I personally had sort of a hodge-podge of beliefs because I didn't buy into a doctrine just because my Pastor or Sunday School teacher taught it. Instead, I went with whichever side of an issue had the best argument. If I believed, for example, that one could lose their salvation, which my church taught, then I would stick with that unless and until I heard a better argument and then I'd stick with that side of the issue until an even more superior argument was presented to me.

As a result, there was a while there when I was being blown about by every wind of doctrine. Christian Television was coming into its own in those days and so I was exposed to all sorts of different things and, for short periods, I'd accepted little bits of just about every doctrine you can think of and even those doctrines that I didn't overtly accept as true, I didn't outright reject because I was quite aware of the fact that I wasn't exactly standing on the firmest of ground.

Of course, most of you here know that this was all changed for me when Bob put out his Magnum Opus, "The Plot". I ordered that book the instant I heard of its existence. At the time, I worked the over-night shift at a call center. I worked a ten hour shift but only took maybe a half dozen calls for the the last eight hours of that shift and so I was getting paid to watch television and play board games with the other six or eight people that worked that shift with me. In other words, I had lots of time for reading books! I read Bob's entire book in less than two days. I couldn't stop reading it! The Plot was and is the ultimate in superior arguments! Nothing since then has come close to touching it. Since then, I've listened to every bible study series that Bob has ever done and they're all nearly as brilliant as his book and over the decades I've grown quite accustomed to trusting Bob's teaching and judgment.

It is, therefore, no small thing to my mind that Bob disagreed with the position put forth in this essay. Regardless, my allegiance to my own mind supersedes my allegiance to a favored and even beloved teacher. As such, unless and until someone presents to me an argument which either directly refutes what is presented above or is in some other way superior to it, I accept that the age of twenty (or at least something near that age) is indeed the age of accountability and that childhood beliefs, confessions, etc that are not carried into adulthood are not indicative of one's salvation.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
This first section of the essay makes me miss Bob Enyart so much! I wish I could have heard Bob's argument! I wish I could call him right now and ask him about this topic. I still can't believe he's gone. :(

Think of all the things we'll be able to talk about with him when we get to heaven!

I'm reminded of when I was first exposed to Bob Enyart, watching his nightly TV show when I lived in Tulsa. It was so radically different to any sort of Christianity I had ever seen before, not to mention more compelling and effective. Nothing like it would be allowed on the air today.

Back then, I was in my 20's and was still very much interested in understanding why different churches teach quite different things, all while claiming to be "bible believing" churches. I personally had sort of a hodge-podge of beliefs because I didn't buy into a doctrine just because my Pastor or Sunday School teacher taught it. Instead, I went with whichever side of an issue had the best argument. If I believed, for example, that one could lose their salvation, which my church taught, then I would stick with that unless and until I heard a better argument and then I'd stick with that side of the issue until an even more superior argument was presented to me.

As a result, there was a while there when I was being blown about by every wind of doctrine. Christian Television was coming into its own in those days and so I was exposed to all sorts of different things and, for short periods, I'd accepted little bits of just about every doctrine you can think of and even those doctrines that I didn't overtly accept as true, I didn't outright reject because I was quite aware of the fact that I wasn't exactly standing on the firmest of ground.

Of course, most of you here know that this was all changed for me when Bob put out his Magnum Opus, "The Plot". I ordered that book the instant I heard of its existence. At the time, I worked the over night shift at a call center. I worked a ten hour shift but only took maybe a half dozen called for the the last eight hours of that shift and so I was getting paid to watch television and play board games with the other six or eight people that worked that shift with me. In other words, I had lots of time for reading books! I read Bob's entire book in less than two days. I couldn't stop reading it! The Plot was and is the ultimate in superior arguments! Nothing since then has come close to touching it. Since then, I've listened to every bible study series that Bob has ever done and they're all nearly as brilliant as his book and over the decades I've grown quite accustomed to trusting Bob's teaching and judgment.

It is, therefore, no small thing to my mind that Bob disagreed with the position put forth in this essay. Regardless, my allegiance to my own mind supersedes my allegiance to a favored and even beloved teacher. As such, unless and until someone presents to me an argument which either directly refutes what is presented above or is in some other way superior to it, I accept that the age of twenty (or at least something near that age) is indeed the age of accountability and that childhood beliefs, confessions, etc that are not carried into adulthood are not indicative of one's salvation.

I may attempt it. Give me a few days to get my thoughts together!
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Ok, so I'm just going to respond to the parts I know how to respond to. If I miss something that you think is important, let me know in the reply.


The ONLY Biblical answer to The Age of Accountability

. . .

Bob agreed that if the age of accountability was twenty in the Old Testament, that it would not change in the New Testament. However, he doesn't believe in the twenty-year age of accountability, opting instead for the varied age of accountability.

This is similar to what I believe, in part because Bob taught it, and not only that, but also because he gave evidence for it that is scriptural.

In other words, I believe that the age of accountability differs from person to person, and that the Bible supports that idea, and not only that, but also that the age of accountability being "20 years of age" was specifically for Israel.

[Bob] had no biblical material to back up his statement, other than showing other figures of speech in the Bible. I found it to be a very weak argument, especially in light of the numerous times God uses twenty as the age of responsibility in the Bible. As well as the scientific data, which shows, the human body (and more importantly-the brain) does not fully develop until around twenty. However the subject is not closed and we continue to debate.

What's interesting about this is that I recently (within the last few years) came across a scientific article that says that the "rational" part of the brain doesn't reach full development until 25, and the brain takes another few years for the brain to reach full maturity, around age 30.


Oh, and if it turns out to be wrong, I can always use the Adam Defense-"It was my wife's idea".

Well we all know how well that worked out for him, don't we? Hahaha!

What is meant by the term “age of accountability”?

Most Christians who believe in an age of accountability would state that it is an age at which one becomes accountable for ones’ actions before God.

Agreed.

What is the basis for this belief?

One of the strongest Biblical passages in support of this argument is Paul’s statement in Romans 7:

Rom. 7:9-11 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.

Here Paul explains that he was alive once, meaning that he was alive to God, before he understood sin and its full ramifications. He further states that when sin revived in him with the knowledge of the law he fell under its power and died to God.

Also agreed.

So, what then, is the age at which one becomes accountable to God?

Most Christians would state that they believe that this age varies from individual to individual, ranging from very young (I know of at least one pastor who believes his son was saved, meaning eternally sealed, at the age of five) to around twelve or thirteen years of age.

My belief differs slightly, but I generally agree.

However there is an opposing viewpoint that believes God has decreed twenty years as the age when one becomes accountable to Him.

Biblical Evidence

In support of varied age theory

chirp—chirp—chirp…(sound of crickets chirping alone in the scary night)

There is no biblical evidence that we know of in support of a varied age of accountability.

The evidence most commonly cited for this view is that it “seems right.”

Actually, there is Biblical support, and I'm actually suprised that this person didn't even reference it throughout this entire post.

It's in Romans 2. And in addition to Romans 2, there's also all the other verses he uses throughout this post, and also Luke 12:48. But more on that below.

In support of twenty year age theory

Num. 14:29-32 ‘The carcasses of you who have complained against Me shall fall in this wilderness, all of you who were numbered, according to your entire number, from twenty years old and above. Except for Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun, you shall by no means enter the land which I swore I would make you dwell in. But your little ones, whom you said would be victims, I will bring in, and they shall know the land which you have despised. But as for you, your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness.

Num. 32:11-12 ‘Surely none of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and above, shall see the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because they have not wholly followed Me, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh, the Kenizzite, and Joshua the son of Nun, for they have wholly followed the LORD.’

Deut. 1:390 ‘Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Notice that God is stating that the little ones and children are those below the age of twenty. God states that these do not yet have the knowledge of good and evil.

Verses that demonstrate the age at which a person is accountable for making atonement to the LORD:

THE HOLY HALF SHEKEL (We will get into the great importance of this later in the argument-but not in this post)
Ex. 30:13-16 “This is what everyone among those who are numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (a shekel is twenty gerahs). The half-shekel shall be an offering to the LORD. Everyone included among those who are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering to the LORD. The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when you give an offering to the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves. And you shall take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves.”

Notice that this is a personal offering for atonement (a ransom), which applies only to those twenty and above.

From Nelson’s study Bible: The term ransom is related to the words for atonement and propitiation. The idea is to pay a price for one’s life. The Israelites had to acknowledge that their lives were from God and governed by Him by giving Him an offering of money. Every male (twenty and above) was to provide a half-shekel ransom.

Other Verses that show twenty as being the age of responsibility

WAR: Num. 1:3 “from twenty years old and above — all who are able to go to war in Israel. You and Aaron shall number them by their armies. (one of sixteen verses stating the age of twenty as being suitable for going to war)

SERVICE: 2Chr. 31:17 and to the priests who were written in the genealogy according to their father’s house, and to the Levites from twenty years old and up according to their work, by their divisions
Ezra 3:8 Now in the second month of the second year of their coming to the house of God at Jerusalem, Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the rest of their brethren the priests and the Levites, and all those who had come out of the captivity to Jerusalem, began work and appointed the Levites from twenty years old and above to oversee the work of the house of the LORD.

ANCESTRY: Num. 1:18 and they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month; and they recited their ancestry by families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and above, each one individually
(thirty two verses support the idea of twenty being the age of responsibility in one way or another)

I'm going to acknowledge all of these verses as being support for his position, but also for my position.

Why?

Because my position, as stated above, is that the 20 years of age being the age of accountability, applies only to Israel.

Clete, you and I both know that Israel had a "corporate" relationship with God as part of their covenant with Him, as opposed to the "individual" relationships that believers in the Body of Christ have with Him.

Specifically with Israel, God, throughout the Old Testament, deals with Israel as a singular entity, rather than a group of individuals, and as such, it would make sense that He would, especially in the case of Israel crossing over into the promised land, have a "corporate" standard for those whom he would allow to enter, that being 20 years old, since, as I would argue, it's the upper bounds for when humans acquire "the knowledge of good and evil," which is supported by ALL of the evidence this person gives, and as such, I claim the evidence for my position.

I believe that God using 20 years old as the age of accountability (for Israel) is simply a matter of God being merciful to those who are younger who might or might not know better.

Extra-biblical evidence for twenty year age theory
(these are excerpts - see attachments for further information on these studies.)​

World Book Encyclopedia

Most human beings reach full maturity only between 18 and 25 years of age.

Strictly speaking, a child is anyone who is not yet an adult. According to this definition, childhood extends from birth until sometime past the age of 20--the age at which most people reach their full adult physical growth.

Teenage Brain: A work in progress (NIHM)

While this work suggests a wave of brain white matter development that flows from front to back, animal, functional brain imaging and postmortem studies have suggested that gray matter maturation flows in the opposite direction, with the frontal lobes not fully maturing until young adulthood. To confirm this in living humans, the UCLA researchers compared MRI scans of young adults, 23-30, with those of teens, 12-16.4 They looked for signs of myelin, which would imply more mature, efficient connections, within gray matter. As expected, areas of the frontal lobe showed the largest differences between young adults and teens. This increased myelination in the adult frontal cortex likely relates to the maturation of cognitive processing and other "executive" functions. Parietal and temporal areas mediating spatial, sensory, auditory and language functions appeared largely mature in the teen brain. The observed late maturation of the frontal lobe conspicuously coincides with the typical age-of-onset of schizophrenia—late teens, early twenties—which, as noted earlier, is characterized by impaired "executive" functioning.

As teens grow older, their brain activity during this task tends to shift to the frontal lobe, leading to more reasoned perceptions and improved performance. Similarly, the researchers saw a shift in activation from the temporal lobe to the frontal lobe during a language skills task, as teens got older. These functional changes paralleled structural changes in temporal lobe white matter.


EEG maturation in monozygotic and dizygotic twins. A longitudinal study of 200 twin pairs

Regardless of the many similarities to brain wave patterns of adults, the immature EEG nonetheless exhibits unique characteristics during infancy, childhood and adolescence. These characteristics show distinct inter-individual differences, change continuously over time, and by the age of 20 years they achieve their final form.

The Facts About 16-Year-Old Drivers

They're more likely to be single vehicle crashes. Such crashes account for 44 percent of fatal crashes involving 16-year-old drivers compared with 37 percent among 17-19 year-old drivers and 29 percent among drivers 20-49 years old.

WHAT ARE WISDOM TEETH?

Wisdom teeth, or third molars, are the last teeth to develop and appear in the mouth. They are called "wisdom teeth" because they usually appear during a person’s late teens or early twenties, which has been called the "age of wisdom." The normal position of wisdom teeth is behind the upper and lower second, or 12-year, molars.

As I said above, I claim all of this as support for my position.

Arguments against twenty year age theory:

In this case, it's more "arguments against twenty year age theory that applies to all humans" in favor of "theory that applies only to Israel."

Argument: Christian dogma (traditional Christian thought of varied age theory).

Response: Traditional view is often in error, IE mixing of law and grace/knowledge of God etc. Evidence outweighs tradition.

Agreed. An appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

As such, I will not appeal to tradition.

Argument: Supposed common sense.

Response: Traditional view states that some children as young as five are capable of making a decision in regards to their eternal destiny, even though no responsible adult would allow them to enter a binding legal contract of any sort.

While I agree that an appeal to common sense is a fallacy (for common sense isn't always right), I will point out that this begs the question that people are incapable of making decisions before they are deemed capable by some arbitrarily set age limit.

True, in most modern societies, people have to jump through legal hoops in order to show that they are capable (in this case, capable simply means "able to make legally binding choices) individuals who can make decisions for themselves, though I will point out that even the US allows for special circumstances (which are rare, of course) where people under the age of 18 (let alone 20) are able to act as adults.

And let's not forget that even these laws in place we have today were not always in place. For example, Joseph was as young as 17 years old (typical ages was late teens, 17-19 years old) when he married Jesus' earthly mother, Mary (who was likely 13-16 years old), which was common at the time. David was about 10-15 years old when God determined that He would be king through Samuel, and he wasn't serving in the army when he defeated Goliath, which is evidence that he hadn't yet reached the age of... yup, you guessed it... 20 years old.

In any case, I would argue that some people are mature enough to make such decisions, and even if they don't fully comprehend the consequences of their decisions, they can still make them. I will support this with scripture later in this post.

Argument: Criminals such as Klebold and Harris could be in heaven.

First of all, I believe, based on the arguments in this post, that Kebold and Harris (the Columbine shooters, in case anyone reading this wasn't aware), are in hell.

The only reason this wouldn't be the case is if they repented of their sins before God before they killed themselves.

Response: (1) Where children that have not reached the age of accountability go after physical death is a separate issue.

Agreed.

(2) Christians that think that God is not capable of deciding righteously where these children should go should refer to 1Cor 4:6/1Tim 3:6

Also agreed.

In fact, this lends support to my position, more than it does to the argument that 20 years old is the standard for everyone.

Argument: Biblical statements in support of twenty-year age theory are an exaggeration to make the point that only those without the knowledge of good and evil will enter the Promised Land.

I do not make this argument, however...

Response: (1) This argument proves the point that those under twenty did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil.

It doesn't prove the point. It certainly doesn't argue against it, though.

(2) This argument has no biblical support and is defeated by other biblical passages showing the age of twenty as a sign of maturity, (war, service, atonement, etc.)

I agree, though, it doesn't really have any bearing on my position.

Importance of age of accountability:

Responsibility of Parents toward their children:

Prov. 22:4-6 By humility and the fear of the LORD Are riches and honor and life. Thorns and snares are in the way of the perverse; He who guards his soul will be far from them. Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.

Deut.6:5-7 “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.

Parents have an awesome responsibility to their children. That is to teach them in the ways of the Lord. Without a correct knowledge concerning the age of accountability many parents might relax their teaching and control on a child before it is right to do so. As a police officer I see many parents who allow their teenage children far greater control of their lives than they are ready for. The results are usually disastrous. Sometimes deadly.

Agreed.

If a parent believes that his child was saved at the age of five and then later in his teenage years he becomes rebellious, the parent could always say (and I’ve heard it said), “well at least he’s a Christian”. The results of this type of thinking may well be eternally fatal. Often a child that grows up as a Christian turns against God when he reaches his later teens and early twenties, (I did), perhaps due in part to parents that thought their children were safe and had accepted the gift of salvation. If we, as parents, realize that our children cannot make such an important and eternal commitment until they are fully mature, then it is natural to take greater measures in teaching and instructing them in the ways of the Lord.

Agreed. Such thinking is definitely dangerous, not to mention irresponsible.

2Tim3:14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

We must be diligent in raising our children in a Godly atmosphere. Armed with the truth of God and the knowledge of His Book and loving personality, our children will have the correct instruction in making their choice to humble themselves and say “I do” to God when they reach maturity.

Agreed.

---

Alright. So, what is my evidence and argument from the Scriptures that supports the position I hold, that the age of responsibility is different per person? The whole chapter of Romans 2.

Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,who “will render to each one according to his deeds”:eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.For there is no partiality with God.For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them )in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God,and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law.You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written.For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. - Romans 2:1-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans2:1-29&version=NKJV

I remember Bob explaining this passage, and the explanation he gave is what informed my position on this particular topic. I'm listening to his Bible study on Romans 2 as I type this out to see if I'm remembering correctly that he explained it there (and 15:20 in, I'm becoming more and more sure of it).

Paul was not speaking of those in the Body, and he's not speaking of those who have rejected the gospel.

He's speaking of those who have never heard any gospel message, from the time of Adam to this very day.

He's speaking of those without law who have never heard of Moses, Jesus, or Paul, of those without law who only know the law written on their hearts.

If you have the Romans Bible study, I recommend listening to it before continuing to read, at least from about 14 minutes in or so.

Bob quotes Luke 12:48, which says:

But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more. - Luke 12:48 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke12:48&version=NKJV

Hmm, that doesn't sound like an age restriction of 20 years old and older to me, even given the context, which was the parable of the faithful servant and the evil servant.

But it's an important principle that I think Lion, the person you're quoting, completely missed.

"To whom much is given, much will be required." Meaning that if someone is given a responsibility, and they do not maintain their responsibility, then they are accountable for their actions. And if they are not given something, then they are not accountable for it. Maybe you can see where I'm going with this.

To give a bit of personal testimony:

I got saved when I was in fifth grade. I will stand by that until I can be shown to be wrong, or until Jesus Himself tells me when I meet Him, whichever comes first. For context, and I believe this is important, I grew up going to a Lutheran school from 1st through 4th grade. We attended one of two different churches, one was Christ's Church of Joplin (5200 E 32nd Street Joplin, MO 64804), and the other one was Calvary Chapel, which used to be at the end of the road that our street (which was a dead end) connected to, but has since moved, it seems. Either way, as a child, I had a good Christian upbringing, but I definitely wouldn't consider myself to have been saved, despite me being somewhat enthusiastic in Sunday school sometimes (though, I hated the singing and the loud music, and couldn't have cared less for the dancing and "speaking in tongues" that some of the other members did, but it was church). I the more important part though was that I went to a Lutheran school, and we even had chapel services during school hours on Wednesdays, if I remember correctly. Needless to say, I wasn't taught "the gospel proper" while I lived in Joplin.

That changed in fifth grade, after we moved from Joplin, MO, to Independence, MO. I was enrolled in Tri City Christian School (which I just found out was apparently permanently closed three years ago... https://www.thepitchkc.com/once-led...ity-baptist-church-in-independence-downsizes/), which was a large Baptist church with a K-12 school program. I was in fifth grade at the time, and one day the teacher told us to put our heads down, and told us about how we were in danger of going to hell. I don't remember exactly what she said, but it was convincing enough that I decided to accept Christ as my savior right there in class.

So what does my testimony have to do with this subject?

I think it demonstrates the point Jesus, Paul, and Bob made, that someone is accountable the moment they hear the gospel presented to them.

Much like pain is simply awareness that something is wrong with our bodies, when the gospel is preached, be that of the Heavens declaring the glory of God, or the Law of Moses, or the Gospel of the Grace of God, it is making the person to whom it is preached aware of their situation. I was made aware of the fact, in fifth grade, that I needed a Savior, that I was destined for Hell unless I turned to Him.

This is why I think that the "age of accountability" differs from person to person, as it's not just a matter of maturity, but also of when someone is presented with the gospel, if they're able to understand it.

For example: A mentally retarded person may live to be 40 years old, but never reach his age of accountability, due to the fact that he may simply just not be able to comprehend the difference between right and wrong, whereas someone who's a genius at 10 years old (not talking about me in fifth grade, by the way, haha) may recognize that there is a difference between what is good and evil, and choose to do either, intentionally.

To whom much is given, much will be required. And to whom much more is given, all the more will be required.

Thus, the age of accountability is the point in someone's life when they are presented with the choice between right and wrong, and they knowingly choose to do wrong.

Harris and Klebold, even if they had never rejected the gospel, had the law written in their hearts, and knew that murder was wrong, yet they proceeded to murder 13 others and then kill themselves. They knowingly did wrong, and by the time of the mass murder, had already reached the age of accountability, despite never reaching 20 years of age.

One more thing I'll add, because I'm starting to ramble and potentially repeat myself:

I will say that I recommitted my life to Christ around 2015 (I was 22 by the end of 2015), which was within a year after being introduced to Bob's radio ministry. I wasn't living the Christian life, and Bob's show forced me to realize that. I won't go into details, but I don't believe I lost my salvation at any point after fifth grade, or that I didn't get saved in fifth grade, but I recognized that if I wanted to be an example to others, I needed to get my life straightened out. One could argue that that is when I was truly saved, but I think my statements in this post show otherwise.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
In fact, I'm going to go so far as to claim the entire track of Bob's study of Romans 2 as evidence for my position. I'm still listening to it, and more and more I'm considering how what he says applies to this topic, and seeing it fit.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
@JudgeRightly,

I'm going to be quite busy today so I'll have to wait to read your full post until I have more time. All I've read so far is just the first few sentences but I thought I'd offer the following, just as a teaser...

While I think Lion's argument to be a good one (the best I've yet seen), I do not subscribe to the idea that the age of accountability is EXACTLY twenty years of age. That seems to be obviously too arbitrary and legalistic. I do not, however, believe that the age of accountability to be so plastic as to allow for it to be as young as thirteen or to not exist at all. The age of twenty, it seems to me, stands as a good rule of thumb.

Perhaps your post will change my mind!

Clete
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
@JudgeRightly,

I'm going to be quite busy today so I'll have to wait to read your full post until I have more time. All I've read so far is just the first few sentences but I thought I'd offer the following, just as a teaser...

While I think Lion's argument to be a good one (the best I've yet seen), I do not subscribe to the idea that the age of accountability is EXACTLY twenty years of age. That seems to be obviously too arbitrary and legalistic. I do not, however, believe that the age of accountability to be so plastic as to allow for it to be as young as thirteen or to not exist at all. The age of twenty, it seems to me, stands as a good rule of thumb.

Perhaps your post will change my mind!

Clete

Fair enough :)

Also, quickly wanted to mention something that I forgot to in my post, In 5th grade, I was around 10-11 years old, probably closer to 10, since I was born near the middle of the year, and I'm pretty sure the event I described was in the first half of the year.
 

Derf

Well-known member
I'm curious about whether the age of accountability would set a lower limit on whom we should witness to, because if they aren't accountable for evil, can they be accountable for good, or at least for a permanent, everlasting decision?
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I'm curious about whether the age of accountability would set a lower limit on whom we should witness to, because if they aren't accountable for evil, can they be accountable for good, or at least for a oermanent, everlasting decision?

I honestly think this lends credence to my position, as opposed to if it were exactly 20 years old, or even if it's just a rule of thumb.

Another line of evidence in support of my position is when we consider the "opportunity cost."

If Lion is right, then there's no point to witnessing to young people under the age of 20, because it won't matter anyways. Sure, you could raise them up in scripture, and then present the gospel at their 20th birthday, and you've effectively lost nothing.

Even with Clete's position, which isn't so strict, but considers 20 years old to be the "rule of thumb," you simply have to preach the gospel maybe a few years earlier than 20, and continue preaching it even if they've already accepted it, just to make sure, until a few years after they turn 20, which, to me, seems like at the very least, it's a waste of at least one person's time.

On the other hand, if Lion (and even Clete) is wrong, and the age of accountability is NOT 20 years old, even if it's just a "rule of thumb," and is treated as though it were, the number of people you should be witnessing to is FAR, FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR GREATER, and since every human life is valuable in God's eyes, effectively infinite in value, the opportunity cost is infinitely higher, and teaching that the age of accountability is 20 years old when it's not means that anyone who dies before the age of 20 is a potential soul who went to hell because you didn't preach to them.

I personally don't see the point of holding to a doctrine where I act as though my doctrine is false, in essence, preaching to people who say they got saved when they were younger but are still below the "doctrinal" age of accountability of 20 years old, who claim to have turned from God, just to counteract or offset the opportunity cost of my doctrine if it's wrong, especially when it's something so important as the eternal destination of that person's soul.

On the other hand, if MY position is wrong, then if someone dies under 20 years of age, it doesn't matter if they've accepted Christ as their Savior, since they're technically innocent of any sin to begin with, and God will deal with them Himself when they stand before Him, and not only that, but if someone accepts Christ as their savior before he is 20 years old (or whatever the "rule of thumb" allows), and then dies after he reaches 20 years of age, what then? Will God cast him into Hell simply because he didn't accept Christ AFTER he made it to 20 years old, but did it before? Or will He allow the person into Heaven because He is merciful, or simply due to the fact that the person did accept Christ as Savior (which would negate the whole idea that the AoA is or is around 20 anyways).

I don't think God is cruel. And I think that a person is accountable for whatever gospel they hear. If that means that stand before God and are judged by Him for how well they did by holding to the law written upon their hearts, having never heard of Moses or Jesus or Paul, then so be it. If that means that God will judge them by how well they kept the Mosaic law, then so be it. If that means that God will look at their account, and if sees Christ, He allows them into heaven, regardless of what age they were when they did so, then so be it.

I would even be willing to concede my entire argument regarding what the age of accountability is for people today (not talking about what it was for Israel) if the only thing we could establish is that "we simply don't have enough information to know what the age of accountability is for the people in the world," so long as it was recognized that 20 is DEFINITELY the age of accountability SPECIFICALLY, even if not exclusively, for the nation of Israel, simply because of their corporate relationship with God, which age for Israel I think Lion himself established fairly well.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I'm curious about whether the age of accountability would set a lower limit on whom we should witness to, because if they aren't accountable for evil, can they be accountable for good, or at least for a permanent, everlasting decision?

Basically, in other words, I think that putting a lower limit on someone's age whom we should witness to is not only an extremely dangerous thing to do, for both the one witnessing and the unsolicited, or perhaps, already solicited, but also potentially extremely arrogant.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I'm curious about whether the age of accountability would set a lower limit on whom we should witness to, because if they aren't accountable for evil, can they be accountable for good, or at least for a permanent, everlasting decision?
  • Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.
  • Ephesians 6:4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.
 

Derf

Well-known member
@JudgeRightly and @Clete

I tend to agree with you--that there are differing ages when people should be held accountable, maybe even different ages in the same person for different things. Some of Clete's post's scripture was relating to military service, and I remember hearing one pastor suggest the age of twenty would allow for the young man to get married and have a child before possibly dying in war, at least in that culture. Obviously that doesn't fit with several of the other scriptures, but it might with the ones that weren't allowed to go into Canaan, since the 20-year-olds were in the military, so they would be the first, perhaps, to "chicken out".

I think Clete had the right answer--we should be training up our children to give them the right skills in life, whether spiritually or otherwise. But what about other people's children? For instance, should we go behind a parent's back to witness to and baptize a child? I remember hearing some stories about a church a number of years ago that was having some kind of special events for kids, and then the parents find out later their kids were baptized there without their permission. Maybe that's not a sticking point with you guys considering Bob's position on baptism, but it illustrates a potential conflict.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
@JudgeRightly and @Clete

I tend to agree with you--that there are differing ages when people should be held accountable, maybe even different ages in the same person for different things. Some of Clete's post's scripture was relating to military service, and I remember hearing one pastor suggest the age of twenty would allow for the young man to get married and have a child before possibly dying in war, at least in that culture. Obviously that doesn't fit with several of the other scriptures, but it might with the ones that weren't allowed to go into Canaan, since the 20-year-olds were in the military, so they would be the first, perhaps, to "chicken out".

I think Clete had the right answer--we should be training up our children to give them the right skills in life, whether spiritually or otherwise. But what about other people's children? For instance, should we go behind a parent's back to witness to and baptize a child? I remember hearing some stories about a church a number of years ago that was having some kind of special events for kids, and then the parents find out later their kids were baptized there without their permission. Maybe that's not a sticking point with you guys considering Bob's position on baptism, but it illustrates a potential conflict.
Children are not yet lost and so do not need "saving". They need to be taught, yes, but not saved. We should tell children, that we rightly have influence over, the truth and treat them according to their actions and attitudes but we should focus at least as much of our evangelistic efforts on the parents of wayward children than on the children. If the parents are saved, there's a good chance that the whole family will be as well.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Children are not yet lost and so do not need "saving". They need to be taught, yes, but not saved. We should tell children, that we rightly have influence over, the truth and treat them according to their actions and attitudes but we should focus at least as much of our evangelistic efforts on the parents of wayward children than on the children. If the parents are saved, there's a good chance that the whole family will be as well.
Yet, children still die. If the wages of sin is death, why do they receive those wages?
 
Top