Some children will be left behind.

Lovin Jesus

Well-Known Member
I do think children could be affected by the choices of their parents but may fall under the age of accountability. Deuteronomy 30:19 God gives Israel a choice and it involves their children.

19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,
Deuteronomy 30:19

But I don't know if this is also for the end times judgement
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
Concur with Jack on the below.

Question; In your article about miscarriage, you wrote, “The Bible says life begins at conception (Psalm 139:13-14) and children under the age of understanding have eternal life (Romans 7:9).” I fail to understand how Romans 7:9 has anything to say about the age of children, or their understanding. Please explain.

Answer:The general context of Romans 7 is Paul’s claim that rather than save him, the Law exposed the extent of man’s sinfulness, condemning him to death. Being a Jew who was obviously alive at the time, he wrote, “For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died” (Romans 7:9). (The word for “without” also means “apart from”.) Since he was physically alive he had to have been referring to spiritual, or eternal life. In Judaism children are not accountable under the Law, therefore their sins are not counted against them. They have eternal life.

When they reach the age of accountability, they become responsible for their sins. They acknowledge their accountability in a ceremony called bat mitzvah for girls, usually held at age 12, and bar mitzvah for boys age 13. This is what Paul meant by saying, “The commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” So as soon as Paul became old enough to be accountable for his sins, he was scheduled for death, already as good as dead.

No official written references to the method for conducting bar or bat mitzvah ceremonies existed during Paul’s time. But the practice was obviously well known enough that Paul could expect even his gentile readers to understand what he was talking about. Since Paul was adamantly opposed to following tradition for its own sake, he must have known that belief in an age of accountability was legitimate from God’s perspective.

The age at which a child becomes accountable has to do more with attaining the intellectual ability to understand the sin/ salvation issue than reaching a certain age and that’s why it’s not specified in the Bible.
https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/the-age-of-accountability/
 

Footsteps

Well-Known Member
Terms not in Scripture:
Age of accountability
Trinity
Rapture ("Harpazo", maybe)
Rapture Forums
-Yet they all exist.
Ironically, the question of children left behind at the Rapture ties in with the debate about people who grow up in lands dominated by false religions.
As a volunteer teacher of elementary age students in a Christian school, the phrase in a post above resonates with me (a lot relates to their parenting).
I interact with many kids who exhibit very pathological behavior. But even their (often questionable) parents have decided to pay tuition to rescue their children from Satanic public school indoctrination.
In every course I teach I go beyond the Bible-based text with each student - many of whom have surprisingly deep spiritual questions. I'm convinced there are seeds planted even when I can't see results.
A child left behind at the Rapture would exit the age of grace and be forced to try to find the Lord during the Tribulation, then accept execution if he refused to take the Mark. This would put my unsaved students in a ridiculously untenable position.
How does this relate to adults in remote areas of non-Christian lands? Indirectly - "How does a person to whom the Gospel was never presented reach an age of accountability?"
 

JoyJoyJoy

I Shall Not Be Moved
Terms not in Scripture:
Age of accountability
Trinity
Rapture ("Harpazo", maybe)
Rapture Forums
-Yet they all exist.
Ironically, the question of children left behind at the Rapture ties in with the debate about people who grow up in lands dominated by false religions.
As a volunteer teacher of elementary age students in a Christian school, the phrase in a post above resonates with me (a lot relates to their parenting).
I interact with many kids who exhibit very pathological behavior. But even their (often questionable) parents have decided to pay tuition to rescue their children from Satanic public school indoctrination.
In every course I teach I go beyond the Bible-based text with each student - many of whom have surprisingly deep spiritual questions. I'm convinced there are seeds planted even when I can't see results.
A child left behind at the Rapture would exit the age of grace and be forced to try to find the Lord during the Tribulation, then accept execution if he refused to take the Mark. This would put my unsaved students in a ridiculously untenable position.
How does this relate to adults in remote areas of non-Christian lands? Indirectly - "How does a person to whom the Gospel was never presented reach an age of accountability?"
Excellent points. I have pondered on some of these questions myself. I don't know the answers but fully trust in God's Sovereignty.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
Some random thoughts on the issue:

Condemnation is for those who "die in their sins" (see Ezekiel 3:20; John 8:21 and John 8:24). Jesus took the prescribed penalty for our infractions of God's law-i.e. sin. Jesus is quite clear that those who do not believe that He is who He said He is, will be held responsible for their own sins. We are separated from God by those sins. The only way that He will permit sinners to enter His holy heaven is through being washed clean in the Blood of Jesus.

Those incapable of understanding what it means to sin, will not be held accountable, simply because they do not sin. That is what it means to be innocent. The innocent are dear to the God of all Creation. Babies and young children are innocent of wrongdoing because they have not yet formed a conscience; they are unaware of right and wrong. It takes a fair bit of time before they are able to recognize that they are sinners in need of the forgiveness of the unseen God. Being loved and loving others gives them a glimpse of Him.

Once they become able to make moral judgments, they are subject to redemption or condemnation--and for every child that would vary to a degree. That is why it is difficult to speak of an "age of accountability". The Jews made it a formal rule--the day that boys and girls announce that they are responsible before the Law. But, we in the Church, are Holy Spirit guided--not guided by the staff of the Law, even though it is useful for informing our faith.

Loving God means that we hate sin. A choice must be made to love God or love our sin. One cannot serve both. Malachi 3:16-18---"Then those who feared the LORD talked with each other, and the LORD listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in His presence concerning those who feared the LORD and honored His name. 'On the day when I act,” says the LORD Almighty, 'they will be my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as a father has compassion and spares his son who serves him. And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not'."

Were the people of God sinless? No, but they were given the means to be forgiven in the sacrificial system that foreshadowed the once-for-all-time sacrifice of the Lamb of God. They fervently looked forward, in faith, to Messiah and, in the Millennial Temple sacrifice, they will look back to Him, in faith. We, in this Age of Grace, are granted forgiveness through faith alone, and are given our indwelling Helper, the Holy Spirit. It is very important to teach children that to be redeemed does not mean that one is sinless, but rather, that their sins have been forgiven in Christ's sacrificial work on the Cross. It cost God a great, great amount to make us clean of our sin.

Romans 9:11 makes it clear that babies in the womb do not do anything--right or wrong. They have no sins for which to be held accountable.
 
Last edited:

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
Further thought on Original Sin as conceived by Augustine. I believe that Augustine was in error--probably because he did not read Greek and used an inferior Latin version of the Scriptures to form his theologies. He taught that an infant who died was destined to go to hell. This notion contradicts biblical teaching that we are responsible for our own sins. We are not responsible for our ancestors' sins and we are not responsible for our children's sins (see this clear teaching in Ezekiel 18:4 and again in vs. 19-20). Augustine was a pagan for many years before his conversion and I believe he was affected by his former beliefs. He formed the basis of predestination that later infected the RCC and much later, Calvinism (Calvinism was, at first, called "Calvinistic Augustinianism"). The theological set was somewhat softened by the un-biblical RCC notion of limbo as the place where un-baptized infants go. Thus, the original error conceived by Augustine, was compounded by the error of "infant baptism" (given as a sop to grieving parents who were horrified by the Augustinian teaching). The New Testament is clear that baptism is for believers. Since an infant is incapable of belief, he/she should not be baptized. Some would say further, that baptism should only be offered to those who believe and repent of their sins.

Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox do not teach the Augustinian notion of Original Sin. They teach that there WAS the sin of our ancestral parents, Adam and Eve that infected all of mankind--and that we inherit that sin nature. BUT, a baby or young child is incapable of sin and does NOT inherit his/her parents' (or ancestral parents') actual sins--just the sin nature. On this, the Eastern Orthodox seem closer to what Scripture teaches than those who baptize infants to remove Original Sin. Not sure why they would want to baptize infants but apparently the Eastern Orthodox do.
 
Last edited:

Mary Cole

Well-Known Member
Further thought on Original Sin as conceived by Augustine. I believe that Augustine was in error--probably because he did not read Greek and used an inferior Latin version of the Scriptures to form his theologies. He taught that an infant who died was destined to go to hell. This notion contradicts biblical teaching that we are responsible for our own sins. We are not responsible for our ancestors' sins and we are not responsible for our children's sins (see this clear teaching in Ezekiel 18:4 and again in vs. 19-20). Augustine was a pagan for many years before his conversion and I believe he was affected by his former beliefs. He formed the basis of predestination that later infected the RCC and much later, Calvinism (Calvinism was, at first, called "Calvinistic Augustinianism"). The theological set was somewhat softened by the un-biblical RCC notion of limbo as the place where un-baptized infants go. Thus, the original error conceived by Augustine, was compounded by the error of "infant baptism" (given as a sop to grieving parents who were horrified by the Augustinian teaching). The New Testament is clear that baptism is for believers. Since an infant is incapable of belief, he/she should not be baptized. Some would say further, that baptism should only be offered to those who believe and repent of their sins.

Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox do not teach the Augustinian notion of Original Sin. They teach that there WAS the sin of our ancestral parents, Adam and Eve and that infected all of mankind--and that we inherit that sin nature. BUT, a baby or young child is incapable of sin and does NOT inherit his/her parents' (or ancestral parents') sins. On this, the Eastern Orthodox seem closer to what Scripture teaches than those who baptize infants.
He was, at one time, also a gnostic, mystic and manichaean, and incorporated those ideas into his theology.
 

Salluz

Aspiring Man of God
Romans 9:11 makes it clear that babies in the womb do not do anything--right or wrong. They have no sins for which to be held accountable

What do you make of Psalm 51?

5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

And Romans 9:11 talks about how they had done no good or evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean they hadn't sinned. Sin is a condition of the heart just as much as it's an action, right?

Edit to clarify, I'm not trying to argue against an age of accountability, just possibly the reasoning behind it. It's been my understanding that even though every single person sins, God doesn't hold people accountable for those sins who do not comprehend right and wrong. The difference being whether certain people do not sin at all versus everyone sinning but God not holding certain people accountable out of His mercy
 
Last edited:

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
What do you make of Psalm 51?

5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

And Romans 9:11 talks about how they had done no good or evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean they hadn't sinned. Sin is a condition of the heart just as much as it's an action, right?

Edit to clarify, I'm not trying to argue against an age of accountability, just possibly the reasoning behind it. It's been my understanding that even though every single person sins, God doesn't hold people accountable for those sins who do not comprehend right and wrong. The difference being whether certain people do not sin at all versus everyone sinning but God not holding certain people accountable out of His mercy.
Looks like you are arguing the Calvinist position for the Calvinists. :) They often use this expression as a "proof" of predestination and the need for infant baptism. I take that part of Psalm 51, as a hyperbolic and poetic expression of the contaminated nature of mortal human flesh. While I believe that we inherit our sin nature, as apparently David is expressing here, I doubt that David is suggesting that he was conceived or born out of wedlock (he was one of the younger children). Are you trying to say that a baby in the womb has evil in his/her heart? Then what hope is there for any of us to turn away from sin, as we are constantly exhorted to do?

I think we might be arguing over words here. If someone has not done evil, I take that as that person not having sinned. The Book of James tells us that temptation comes from our own sinful nature and that is what "gives birth to sinful actions" (1:15). It is no sin to be tempted--Jesus Himself was tempted (see Matthew 4). Hebrews 4:15 tells us, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." I think it is important to avoid taking one line (or even a small collection of lines) out of the Bible and basing a theology on it. To my mind, Psalm 51 needs to be seen against the backdrop of David's agony over his having fallen to temptation and sinning with Bathsheba. He is crying out to be cleansed of his sin, if you read the entire Psalm. :)
 
Last edited:

Mary Cole

Well-Known Member
What do you make of Psalm 51?

5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

And Romans 9:11 talks about how they had done no good or evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean they hadn't sinned. Sin is a condition of the heart just as much as it's an action, right?

Edit to clarify, I'm not trying to argue against an age of accountability, just possibly the reasoning behind it. It's been my understanding that even though every single person sins, God doesn't hold people accountable for those sins who do not comprehend right and wrong. The difference being whether certain people do not sin at all versus everyone sinning but God not holding certain people accountable out of His mercy
To take your statement one step further, we could conclude that we may be conceived with a sinful nature, but as infants or young children we do not comprehend right or wrong, nor understand the law. Paul said that before he knew the law, there was no sin. And once he knew the law, he became a sinner. Infants, children and those who are mentally incapable of understanding right from wrong would not, therefore, have sins counted against them.
 

Tall Timbers

Imperfect but forgiven
To take your statement one step further, we could conclude that we may be conceived with a sinful nature, but as infants or young children we do not comprehend right or wrong, nor understand the law. Paul said that before he knew the law, there was no sin. And once he knew the law, he became a sinner. Infants, children and those who are mentally incapable of understanding right from wrong would not, therefore, have sins counted against them.

Which is why, if an age of accountability does come in to play, I would think the actual age of accountability would vary from person to person.
 

Salluz

Aspiring Man of God
Looks like you are arguing the Calvinist position for the Calvinists. :) They often use this expression as a "proof" of predestination and the need for infant baptism. I take that part of Psalm 51, as a hyperbolic and poetic expression of the contaminated nature of mortal human flesh. While I believe that we inherit our sin nature, as apparently David is expressing here, I doubt that David is suggesting that he was conceived or born out of wedlock (he was one of the younger children). Are you trying to say that a baby in the womb has evil in his/her heart? Then what hope is there for any of us to turn away from sin, as we are constantly exhorted to do?

I typed up a whole response to this and deleted it because I'm a bit too fired up. I'm upset by the insinuation that I'm a calvinist, and I'm also upset by the insinuation that I've based my theology on one line or a collection of lines. The whole post read as patronizing after the calvinist preface, even the smiley faces, which didn't do anything to lessen the blow.

I'll just try to summarize my relevant beliefs, and then I'll leave this conversation well enough alone.

I believe unregenerate mankind is fully incapable of turning away from sin, which is why everyone needs a savior. It's only with the help of the Holy Spirit that we have any hope of going against our sinful natures. A sinful nature is, by nature, sinful. Like Paul said, there is nothing good in our flesh. That's why we war against it. For unbelievers, all they have is their flesh. They don't have the new nature that comes from being saved. All an unbeliever can do is sin.

Jesus was capable of being tempted without sinning because He did not have a sinful nature. Matthew 5 and other places mention that even being angry at someone or looking at someone lustfully constitute sin. Sin is not necessarily an action. Pride, which was even the first sin, is entirely within the heart.

I don't believe in infant baptism, or any sort of baptism except for people who are already saved as an outward expression of an inward change. I believe grace is fully resistable, and that God offers salvation to everyone, though few take the offer. I do believe in the predestination that is outlined in the Bible, which I believe is different from the calvinist definition of predestination. More akin to reserving a seat than forcing someone to sit in it. But I'm not sure why I should have to defend myself when I've never supported Calvinism in the years I've been here.
 

Salluz

Aspiring Man of God
Which is why, if an age of accountability does come in to play, I would think the actual age of accountability would vary from person to person.

I do often wonder, though, if there is a minimum age for it, if not a maximum age for it. All of the Israelites under 20 were allowed to enter the promised land because they didn't understand good and evil. Although for some reason I can't find the verse that I'm sure says that to post it...

I wouldn't bet on the minimum age being twenty--eternity is too precious to bet on--but based on that, it also wouldn't surprise me.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
I typed up a whole response to this and deleted it because I'm a bit too fired up. I'm upset by the insinuation that I'm a calvinist, and I'm also upset by the insinuation that I've based my theology on one line or a collection of lines. The whole post read as patronizing after the calvinist preface, even the smiley faces, which didn't do anything to lessen the blow.

I'll just try to summarize my relevant beliefs, and then I'll leave this conversation well enough alone.

I believe unregenerate mankind is fully incapable of turning away from sin, which is why everyone needs a savior. It's only with the help of the Holy Spirit that we have any hope of going against our sinful natures. A sinful nature is, by nature, sinful. Like Paul said, there is nothing good in our flesh. That's why we war against it. For unbelievers, all they have is their flesh. They don't have the new nature that comes from being saved. All an unbeliever can do is sin.

Jesus was capable of being tempted without sinning because He did not have a sinful nature. Matthew 5 and other places mention that even being angry at someone or looking at someone lustfully constitute sin. Sin is not necessarily an action. Pride, which was even the first sin, is entirely within the heart.

I don't believe in infant baptism, or any sort of baptism except for people who are already saved as an outward expression of an inward change. I believe grace is fully resistable, and that God offers salvation to everyone, though few take the offer. I do believe in the predestination that is outlined in the Bible, which I believe is different from the calvinist definition of predestination. More akin to reserving a seat than forcing someone to sit in it. But I'm not sure why I should have to defend myself when I've never supported Calvinism in the years I've been here.
Sorry that I seem to have offended you--none of what you inferred is what I intended. I certainly did not intend to be "patronizing" as you accuse. The smiley faces were intended to try to convey good humour. Again, sorry that you took it the wrong way--please accept my apology.
 
Top