Josh wrote:cmbl wrote:I believe that "baptism should be given to those who have learned repentance and the amendment of life" and am not in favor of reducing the age of baptism in CA circles.
That said, can someone shed some light on the concept of "age of accountability?" Is this a concept defined somewhere in the NT with reference to the OT? Or is it cobbled together from OT sources as people systematize freewill theology?
It's not something really detailed in scripture, but it is definitely assumed in a few places; nobody holds an infant responsible for their choices, but everyone holds someone who is well past adolescence and is of sane mind to be responsible for their choices. The culture Jesus was in had a general perspective that at the age of 13, someone was an adult and needed to be responsible to know how to worship and obey God properly, and from then on had an obligation to do so.
I think some things are so obvious that it seems a bit of a stretch to say scripture must say them - for example - the Bible doesn't lay out in detail what a man is and what a woman is. It just says "man" and "woman". Likewise it talks about children and it talks about full grown adults.
Right, I agree. It's not explicitly stated anywhere, OT or NT, but is assumed or implied.
If you think about the scope of the atonement, we believe, according to 1 John 2:2, that it is sufficient for everyone. Of course it is not effective for unbelievers - only believers. But for those who were never capable of believing because they are children or mentally handicapped, the fact that the atonement is sufficient for the whole world allows the possibility of God applying it to them.
According to the age of accountability, children are not
innocent in the sense of being sinless, but in the sense that they are held unaccountable for their wrongs. In agreement with this, the Old Testament refers to children as "innocent" a number of times, in the sense of being found "not guilty" in court. (For example, when it speaks of "innocents" being sacrificed to Moloch).
In 2 Samuel 12:21–23, David had been grieving and praying for his child, after Nathan the prophet told him that the child would die. But after the child died, David stopped mourning, and said, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."
In the NT, there are verses like Matthew 18:10 and Matthew 19:14.
What are the alternatives? We have these options:
1) All children are automatically forgiven for their sins and saved by the grace of God. At some point though, they must pass from the previous state of being covered by God's mercy to being accountable and needing to believe in Christ. This is the "age of accountability" position.
2) All children are automatically lost (or at least they go to "limbo" if they die), unless something else happens - i.e., infant baptism. So according to this, children have to be baptized to be saved, and it doesn't matter whether the parents are believers or unbelievers - children still receive grace & forgiveness through baptism. Quote from Augustine: "When children are presented to be given spiritual grace, it is not so much those holding them in their arms who present them—although, if these people are good Christians, they are included among those who present the children—as the whole company of saints and faithful Christians." So the parents' faith is not a factor - just the baptism.
3) Or, some are automatically lost and some are automatically saved. There are actually two positions under this one:
3a) Household salvation - children are automatically saved by being born to Christian parents. This is usually connected closely to infant baptism, as the parents are expected to have the children baptized as the sign that they are in the covenant; this is actually similar to (2), but the difference is that they are saved not so much by baptism itself, as by the faith of their parents.
3b) Some children are unconditionally predestined for salvation, and some for damnation. I think most people who hold this position don't hold it very strongly, saying it could be like this, and rejecting other positions by saying we can't know for sure. It's a Calvinist position, but a lot of Calvinists would hold to one of the other positions instead.
Unless you want to be some kind of Calvinist-Anabaptist, the only option for the Anabaptist is (1). Scripturally, that's the only option.
I think Calvinist Baptists usually accept the age of accountability - see MacArthur or Mohler. And some who baptize infants still believe in the age of accountability anyway.