The Bible is clear
in teaching that we are made in the image of God, (Gen
1:26).
Therefore, to suggest we are born sinful, is to say that God is sinful.
We know that God is sinless, therefore, when we begin our journey in
this world we are safe (spiritually), due to our sinless condition. We
remain safe until we sin. When this occurs we are separated from the
presence of God. The Bible teaches that all have sinned, (Rom
3:23).
The question this article will look at is, at what point do people
become accountable to God for their actions? We often speak of this as
"the age of accountability". At what age does the safe child become a
human at the verge of committing an act that will cause his or her
spiritual death?
Can it be that one
day a person could do a thing which would have no spiritual
ramifications, and the next day do the same thing, and die spiritually?
What are the variables that will determine whether an act is sinful or
merely child's play? I have found that there is no easy or quick answer
to the above questions. There is no set age at which it can be
determined that an individual is accountable for his actions. In fact
there are some who, regardless of age, never become accountable for
their actions.
As a parent, the
answer to these questions becomes more urgent. I have talked to several
parent's about this subject in the past, and they share a real concern,
as to when and how to determine the "age of accountability".
Unfortunately, there has been very little written that is helpful
concerning this subject. I will approach the subject by looking at
what I consider to be the variables, applicable to this discussion. They
are; 1. The emotions, 2. Knowledge, 3. Motivation, 4. The conscience.
Emotions
The first step in
understanding our accountability to God for our actions is to develop
some understanding of emotions. We, like our Creator have the ability
to experience emotions. John 3:16, teaches that God "loves",
Psa 5:5 6, indicates God "hates", and Deut 32:22 indicates
God can be angry.
There is some
difficulty in describing God as a being Who experience's emotions,
because of God's perfect nature. We must be careful to understand the
use of anthropopathism's when describing God. There are times in
scripture when certain passions are ascribed to God, but only as a
matter of accommodation. God's "emotional state" (I'm using that in an
accommodative manner), is constant, predictable, and is perfectly
qualified by His omniscience, which eliminates spontaneity, that we as
humans experience. We, like our Creator, have the capacity to "feel",
the passion of love, hate, and anger. The difference, (and it is an
enormous difference), is that our knowledge does not perfectly qualify
the way we feel about things.
A definition of
human emotion is; "an affective state of consciousness in which joy,
sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from
cognitive and volitional states of consciousness: usually accompanied by
certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat, respiration, or
the like, and often overt manifestation, as crying, shaking, or
laughing". This definition suggests that emotional states often can and
will displace our volitional state. This means that our emotions can
completely remove us from the capacity to act as we “will" to act. I
disagree with that definition. I believe that since we are made in the
image of God, there always remains the possibility, (even under the most
severe emotional strain), to act freely. The bible teaches us that we
are not to be mere creatures of passion. Our emotional state is to be
controlled. Several of the original commandments dealt with the
necessity to keep passions under control. We are instructed not to
murder, commit adultery, steal, or covet our neighbor's possessions.
Therefore, it is evident that part of maturing to the "age of
accountability" has to do with being accountable for acting on passions
that could have been controlled.
Anyone who has ever
watched little children play has seen how strongly their behavior is
dictated by their emotions. One child might desire the toy of another
child. He may even take by force, the toy from the other child.
Although these are actions that latter in life will be coveting and
stealing, the child has not sinned. The child has not sinned because his
knowledge is limited. Purely passionate responses are expected with
children (though they must be corrected through discipline).
Considering
emotions; someone has said that one's emotional state is the sum total
of all of his or her experience's coupled with the manner in which a
situation is perceived. An illustration of this is seen in the emotional
state of one who is giving a speech before a large group for the first
time. Because this person's experience is limited, there will normally
be a great deal of anxiety which will manifest itself with increased
heart rate, sweaty palms, shaking, and a dry mouth. Most people will
perceive such a situation as an occasion to fear and avoid. But after a
person develops experience in speaking publicly, the perception of the
event begins to change. The physical reaction will be one of control
rather than being controlled by the emotion of fear. Thus, the
experience gained coupled with the new perception dictates the emotional
state.
Continuing with the
above illustration, who is it that has a greater responsibility to
deliver a more polished, clear, and effective speech? The more
experienced individual has the greater responsibility. He has had the
opportunity to develop the emotional control necessary in delivering a
more effective speech. This person is in a since accountable for the
outcome of his speech. The person speaking for the first time is really
not accountable in terms of his being ineffective. I believe this
illustrates the role emotional maturity plays in one's accountability
spiritually.
Children who take
toy's and desire someone else's things have not sinned, because they
have not developed the necessary emotional control to bring about
accountability. When we consider one's accountability for actions, we
must consider the emotional maturity of that individual. Because of this
factor, it is impossible to determine a precise age that fits all people
in all situations. People mature at different rates, emotionally.
We've already
touched on another variable in this equation; knowledge. When we speak
of experience and it's effect on one's emotional state, we are really
talking of knowledge. Knowledge is defined as "acquaintance with facts,
truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general
erudication". There is knowledge we gain from experience (science), and
knowledge gained thru contemplation (philosophy). There is particular
knowledge that is able to save our souls, (2 Tim
3:15).
Hopefully, children will be taught the scriptures and develop that
necessary knowledge.
Attaining a certain
level of scriptural knowledge does not indicate that one has reached the
"age of accountability." Many children can tell the story of the gospel
and even cite verses concerning salvation. Young children can often
understand that obedience is essential to eternal life. Yet, simply
having this information does not make a person accountable for his
actions. In order for one to be accountable for the knowledge they
possess of right and wrong there must be the capacity to reason
correctly.
I'm speaking of
one's ability to look at acquired facts and other various information,
and competently arrive at conclusions based upon this information. This
has to do with the area of knowledge known as contemplation. A child
can recite facts regarding the gospel, but cannot conclude that envying
(for example), will constitute the breaking of God's law and cause an
unrepentant soul to be lost for ever and ever. A person develops
reasoning skills throughout life. It is when one matures to the point
of reason that he or she is accountable for the knowledge they have
acquired. In fact the Catholics refer to the "age of accountability" as
the "age of reason".
Before I move into
the next variable, which is motive, let me say something about moral
knowledge. It is not necessary that a person be taught the scripture's
in order to have an understanding of moral right and wrong. If that were
the case, all those who have never heard the scriptures, do not have the
capability to know right from wrong, and therefore cannot sin. This we
know to be incorrect because as Paul said in Acts 17:30, God
commands all men, everywhere to repent. Well, if a man in the deepest
jungle of Africa has never heard of God, what does he have to repent of?
Quite simply, if he has transgressed God's law, he is lost. Stealing and
murder are the same thing in any culture, that is they are moral
transgressions.
Although positive
law requires special revelation, i.e., how to worship, the plan of
salvation, etc., moral law does not require special revelation. The
Gentiles who were without the Law of Moses, had a law unto themselves in
which they were accountable. They could know what was morally right and
what was morally wrong. Romans
2:15
teaches that even without knowledge of any written law, we have a law
that is within our hearts.
So then, concerning
knowledge, little children may acquire it, yet not be accountable unto
it. Knowledge must be coupled with the ability to reason, emotional
maturity, and as we will now see, be guided by our motives, in order for
one to be accountable for actions.
Motives and Conscience
We are driven by our
motives. If someone want's to quit smoking they must develop the
motivation to quit smoking. No person has continued the habit of smoking
against his will. Motive and will are synonymous, at least so far as I
can tell. Motive defined is; "something that prompts a person to act in
a certain way or that determines volition; incentive". A person who has
not reached the point in his life where he is able to direct his motive
or will, is not yet accountable for actions. It seems that a very
important question in this discussion is, how are motives developed?
The foundation for
our motives is our passion and our knowledge. A child can understand
the command "Stay out of the cookie jar!" A child can understand the
threat of punishment for violating this command. Therefore, the child is
accountable for disobeying the command, and is justly punished. A child
may desire a cookie, yet, that desire can be overcome by the fear of
punishment. His motive is thereby directed by both emotional (desire),
as well as knowledge of the punishment. The child might choose to
disobey and eat the cookie. If that is the case, the decision is made
based upon the desire for the cookie, and in spite of the punishment
that is sure to come.
What ever the child
does, he does because he wants to do it. A little baby, who does not
understand language or the threat of punishment, cannot be held
accountable for eating that which is forbidden. Such a child is
incapable of controlling his passion for food. As an infant grows into
a toddler he develops the capacity to make the choice to obey the cookie
command or disregard it. The child then becomes accountable to his
parents for his actions. I believe this serves to illustrate the role of
will or motive in determining accountability. When a person has spent
years developing emotionally, and has learned what is right morally and
what is wrong morally, they then have the necessary requirements of a
free moral agent.
Let's look at the
example of sexual sin. A young male becomes aware of his sexual drive.
This young male may be tempted with some form of homosexual activity.
He would know immediately that this is unnatural,(according to Romans
Chapter one). I believe that he would know that it would be wrong
morally to engage in such activity (he would have to violate his
conscience). What this young male does is going to be determined by his
motive. He is like the child eyeing the cookie jar. The same variables
exist, passion and knowledge, only now the stakes have become higher.
The punishment is spiritual death. This person does not have to commit
the sin, although the choice is before him. He has had a lifetime
developing emotionally, while acquiring knowledge and now he must choose
between passionate lust, or follow the moral light. More simply put, a
choice exists between good and evil. A person does not have to
understand that a reward is available for sinlessness in order to
develop motive to overcome sin. The knowledge of the unnatural act of
homosexual activity, which can be perceived in nature, is enough of a
deterrent to bring about accountability. The same would be true with
any sexual sin, theft, lying, murder, etc. One must violate his moral
conscience in order to commit one of these acts.
Therefore, in order
for one to be accountable for sin, he must have reached the point in
life, in which he can choose between moral good and evil. The very same
choice was before Eve. She wanted to be like God, yet she knew that to
eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil would be in violation of
God's positive law. She had the power to eat or not eat. In her
judgment, the desire to be like God was greater than the prohibition
made by God. She did exactly what she wanted to do. She had the maturity
to control her emotional desires and the ability to reason as to the
consequences of violating God's prohibition. She knew that it would be
displeasing to God. In order to sin she had to violate God's command,
and go against her own conscience. In violating her conscience and
breaking God's law she encountered guilt.
It is my belief that
at the point in which one becomes consciously aware of moral good and
evil they are accountable for actions. This can occur at different ages.
The conscience will develop at a faster rate for those who have been
given moral guidance all of their life. I do not believe that one will
fully understand they have reached the age of accountability until they
experience the guilt that always follows the violation of ones
conscience. This is the law that is written on our hearts, (Rom
2:15).
This guilt is not
the same thing as shame. Shame can be experienced by one who is not yet
accountable. As parents and teachers we must see the difference between
shame and the remorse that proceeds from guilt. A child that has done
something that should not have been done, but only feels shame, is not
accountable for actions and should not be encouraged to be baptized (or
washed of sins that do not exist).
In
Conclusion
What is the "age of
accountability"? It is probably an idiom that needs to be thrown out of
our vocabulary. The term "age" seems only to confuse an already complex
question. What need's to be considered is, at what point one has
matured to the level that they will be accountable for their actions.
The physical age of an individual is not entirely relative to the
discussion. As a parent, what I have learned from this study is a few
basic principles that will help me in instilling in my children the
right motives.
It is inevitable
that both of my sons will at some point sin. When they experience the
guilt of that sin, they need to know what to do about it. In order for
them to make a sound decision to obey the gospel, they must have a
thorough understanding of the reward for doing right and the punishment
for doing evil. When the time comes, the decision will be theirs. They
will face a decision of monumentous proportion. At some point the devil
will come for their souls. Like Adam and Eve, and all but One after
them, they will do something which is opposed to the will of God.
When they first feel
the pains of guilt I hope they will be motivated to accept the gift of
salvation. In one sense, I feel helpless as a father because my desire
is to protect and shelter them from all that would cause them harm.
Thankfully, God feels the same way, and has done everything that I
cannot, to provide a way of escape for my children. One thing is for
sure, they will do precisely what they want to do.
Other Articles
Garage Sale Grace and Flea Market
Salvation