Old Enough To Know Better By Alan Couchman

Details

Category: Salvation

Published on Sunday, 05 April 2009 06:29

Written by Alan Couchman

OLD ENOUGH TO KNOW BETTER
A Commentary on the Biblical Support for an Age of Accountability
BY ALAN COUCHMAN
© 2000-2009 Ryan Hicks Ministries

What is the "age of accountability?" The phrase refers to a point in time at which a person realizes their obligation to love God and others, instead of simply gratifying his own appetites. Sometimes it is called in theology "the dawn of moral agency." No one knows the actual age at which this occurs. It is very probably different for every person, and some people may never reach it, due to retardation or other similar mental handicap. Others die before they reach it. Often it is guessed to be between the ages of four to twelve years old, although for the purposes of this discussion, the actual age is irrelevant. What is important is that we make a distinction between a child who truly is not responsible for fearing God and keeping His commandments (which is the whole duty of man, Eccl. 12:13) because they don’t have sufficient comprehension of God or of duty, versus a moral agent who knows enough to make responsible choices.

There are several truths which, when assumed, lead us logically to the doctrine in question. These are:

 

1. God will not hold us accountable for that which we do not know. Another way to say this is that true ignorance is sufficient grounds to acquit someone of guilt, in God’s court of law. I will demonstrate, from Scripture, that without knowledge there is no such thing as sin.

2. Babies cannot reason, and lack knowledge about God. They can have no concept of duty. A toddler does not have the intellectual capacity to properly appraise the value of people, or of God.

3. God judges all men by the intention of their hearts, and not simply by external actions or appearance. "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord pondereth the hearts (Prov 21:2)," etc., etc., etc. This point is too obviously the doctrine of the Bible to need further elucidation.

But are ALL these assumptions Biblical? Let's take a look at the Scriptures...

The following Scriptures demonstrate unequivocally that without the knowledge of right and wrong there can be no sin:

Gen 20:3-6 "But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife. But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, LORD, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; "

Abimelech offers up ignorance of Sarah’s marital status as sufficient cause for his innocence; God accepts this plea and declares him justified on that ground. True, God did prevent Abimelech from going one step further and ignorantly committing the sin of adultery. However, Abimelech had already violated the letter of the law by marrying and coveting another man’s wife — the only reason Abimelech maintained his integrity throughout was on the ground of his ignorance.

Gen 8:21 "...for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth."

From a young age, the universal tendency of men has been to go astray from what they know is right. How old is "young?" That’s not my place to decide, but it can’t be from birth, since an infant cannot have "imaginations" in his heart. He has neither virtue nor vice in his actions, until his mental faculties are sufficiently developed. Commencing at birth (or before,) a person’s faculties begin to develop. Physical appetites first, and then mental capacity, emotions and desires follow. This is known just by simple observation and common sense, that babies are not born with the same capacities that they will later possess in adulthood, therefore those capacities must be slowly expanding over time. If these faculties, mental, physical, and emotional, are developing over time, then there must be a threshold at which God decides we know "enough" to be responsible for our decisions.

Luke 12:47-8 "And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Genuine ignorance of duty justifies the derelict, but knowledge of duty condemns him. The Jews, to whom were committed the oracles of God (Rom 3:2), had the master’s will explicitly revealed to them, and will be punished all the more severely should they disobey. The gentiles only knew the master’s will partially. Having it written on their hearts, they became a law unto themselves (Rom 2:14-15), and they will still be punished for their disobedience, although their guilt is less.

John 9:39-41 "And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."

If a person were blind in regard to the requirements of the law, then that would be sufficient excuse to justify them in transgressing. Jesus was teaching that the ignorant, those blind to truth, cannot commit sin; or, should they sin, that their sin will not remain. When Jesus says, "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin," he cannot here mean physical blindness, nor spiritual blindness; the former is ridiculous, the latter is intrinsically sinful (and true of the Pharisees in question, who were ever seeing but never perceiving (Mark 4:12.)) Probably the Pharisees meant to deny this accusation of spiritual blindness, but in so doing, affirmed their ability to see their moral duty. Their knowledge of the law, as Jesus deftly observed, magnified their hypocrisy and blameworthiness. They proudly denied any ignorance of the law, and this Jesus affirmed. Their sins were counted against them because they knew better. They could see their duty, but neglected it. If they had been blind to their duty, such neglect would not have been held against them.

Rom 14:14 "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

Say two hotel guests stay in adjacent rooms. One man believes it to be wrong to take the complimentary soap and shampoo, the second man knows that they are complimentary and are there for the taking. But both men slip them into their suitcase before leaving. One sinned, one did not. One’s conscience testifies against him, the other man’s is clear. What is the difference? Knowledge. Same outward action, different intention of heart. If we were not judged according to knowledge (and ability) then the same outward actions would be required of all men. Matthew 25:15 says, "And unto the one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability...". Again, differing abilities and knowledge mean that God requires different things of us. Unto whom much is given...

James 4:17 "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

This verse alone ought to be enough to end speculation on the matter. There is no such thing as sin without knowledge of the duty. By sin is meant willful disobedience. Sin in this sense is always premeditated, and always damnable. There is, however, a sin that is not blameworthy, which is ignorant or accidental transgression of the letter of the law. Babies, for example, break the letter of the law when they scream and cry and think about no one but themselves. They are not wicked for this, because they don’t know any better. Incidentally, if you must insist on forcing the requirements of the law onto those that don’t know them, you make Jesus a sinner. For there was a time when Jesus didn’t know right from wrong as a child...

The following Scriptures demonstrate unequivocally that little children do not know right from wrong:

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

Little children's sins are not held against them, because they don't have enough knowledge to be accountable. These young Israelites literally "don't know any better," and God accepts this as true innocence, and allows them to cross over the Jordan into Canaan. Keep in mind the symbolism of crossing the Jordan, and entering the Promised Land - it is equated with salvation (1Cor 10:2.) Moses, for example, couldn’t go into Canaan because he disobeyed God by striking the rock twice at Meribah; the rock was Christ, and out of anger Moses ruined God’s analogy: Christ smitten and crucified ONCE for sin. Striking the rock twice symbolized those who would "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (See 1Cor 10:4; Heb 4:6-9, 6:4, 10:26-29) And those who do this cannot be renewed to repentance (i.e., saved.)

Isaiah 7:14-16 "...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."

There was a time, even in Jesus' life, when he didn't know right from wrong! At some point in Jesus’ life, he must have reached a point where he became a moral agent, capable of deciding between good and evil. Compare with Luke 2:52.

Matt 18:3-4 "...Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." and,

Matt 19:14 "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

Little children will be saved. They are humble, are quick to believe, and people who would be converted must become like them. They are not guilty, and are certainly not sinners.

Paul’s use of the word "law"

In Romans, Paul goes to great lengths to demonstrate the universal guilt of both gentiles and Jews, to prove that "both Jews and gentiles...are all under sin" (Rom 3:9.) In demonstrating their guilt, and establishing faith as the primary condition of justification, Paul makes extensive use of the word "law" in his arguments. According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, the word law has several related meanings:

(3551) nomoV nom’-os; from a primary nemw nemo (to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), general (regulation), special (of Moses [including the volume]; also of the Gospel), or figurative (aprinciple): — law.

That Paul sometimes uses "law" to mean the "law of Moses" is clear. But sometimes Paul will use "law" to refer to the moral law, or to commandments in general. If anyone doubts this dual usage, please note the following passages:

Rom 2:12-16 "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

The Gentiles will not be judged by the law of Moses, because they do not know it, and are not subject to it, unless they dwell among the Israelites (Num 15:15.) The Gentiles will be judged according to the moral law only, which is written on their hearts, and not by the Pentateuch.

Rom 3:19-20 "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. "

Under what law are the Gentiles, that their mouths are stopped and they become guilty before God? Certainly not the Mosaic law. They are under the moral law. The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, etc. And if by the law we know sin, then without the law we don’t know any sin. Such is the case of little children, retarded individuals, anyone with a severe mentally debilitating disease. Such a person can commit no sin, or at least, whatever they might do cannot be sin to them. The only other way to be not convinced of sin is to be under the law yet never committing sin, like the Savior (Heb 4:15.)

The following Scriptures speak for themselves...

Rom 4:15 "...for where no law is, there is no transgression."

Rom 5:13 "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

Rom 5:20 "Moreover the law entered that the offence might abound."

Rom 7:7-9 "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." (Let me ask, WHEN was Paul "alive without the law," if not when he was a little innocent child? Only when the commandment was perceived did obligation commence, and it was sometime after this that Paul sinned and died spiritually.)

SOME OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

Objection: The phrase "age of accountability doesn’t even appear in the Scriptures!

To this I answer, nor do the phrases, "original sin", "the Trinity", "total depravity", "pre-trib rapture", "fall of man", and a host of other age-old doctrines, some true and some false. The Bible is not a theological treatise. It contains Divinely inspired historical accounts, Hebrew prose, instructions for living, prophecy, and other literary modes, all of which convey truths about God and the nature of things. However, this does not preclude us from summarizing doctrinal statements from the Scripture under headings that describe their common meaning.

Objection: Paul persecuted Christians "in ignorance." Are you saying that he wasn’t guilty because he was ignorant when he did it?!?

No, for there is also such a thing as a WILLFUL ignorance, or an ignorance for which we ARE responsible. Any transgressions that flow directly from this ignorance are still held to our account, because this ignorance is the direct result of our unbelief or our love of lies more than the truth. To embrace a lie when one knows the truth is utterly damnable. But again, don’t take my word for it, let’s look at the Scripture:

2Pet 3:3-5 "...there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? .... For this they willingly are ignorant of...." Note that they are ignorant on purpose!

Rom 1:19 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.... so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools .... Who changed the truth of God into a lie.... And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge.... God gave them over to a reprobate mind...." They knew God, and on purpose forgot and forsook Him. Another example of willful ignorance.

1Tim 1:13 "Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." Paul's ignorance of certain truths resulted from his sinful unbelief, and therefore his ignorance was neither innocent nor genuine, hence, he was still deemed guilty (though to a lesser extent) until he eventually found God's mercy. Also, if you think that Paul found mercy without first repenting of those things, that is not what the text says. Whoever confesses and forsakes their sins shall find mercy (Prov 28:13.)

Objection: But the Bible teaches that we are born guilty, before we even commit sin!

This is both anti-Biblical and anti-intellectual. Worse, it is an attack on the character of God. Not only is He the author of our nature (or the mechanism by which we received our nature, same thing), but then before we are even old enough to know the difference between right and wrong, he condemns us as worthy of Hell. Don’t pin this tyranny on God - the pagans have a more just view of god than some professing "Christians" do of the true God. Much, much more could be said on this topic, but suffice it to say, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25).

Objection: According to your doctrine, a person could live long enough to reach the age of accountability, choose to live holy, and then die without ever having sinned! That would mean they lived a perfect, sinless life, which means they wouldn’t need a Savior!

You’re right. God forbid anybody should choose to do God’s will, and thereby demolish your pet doctrine. How horrible it would be, if anyone should actually accomplish the revealed will of God, and should walk before Him and be perfect! You’re right, it is much better for God to be mutilated and die on a cross, than for men to obey Him!

There is a point to my sarcasm.it is to show just how sick and perverted we’ve become, when God and the Bible teach that men can and should obey, but "Bible-believers" teach that sin is inevitable, and God really wants us to commit AT LEAST one sin, just so we will need a Savior. This is probably a doctrine of devils. At best, it’s a doctrine of men.

Objection: If we’re not born sinful, then how do you account for the universality of sin?

Sin is not universal in the absolute sense. God the Father, Jesus, the angels have always been sin-free. Every aborted baby, and a handful of older human beings, have lived and died entirely free from sin, as is described in the previous objection. And certainly every little child that dies will go to heaven, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Notwithstanding this, I admit that practically speaking everyone is going to fall, or stumble, at some point. But why?

If you’ve read this far, you know that it was earlier stated that young children’s faculties develop and grow over time. The physical needs of nourishment, warmth, a dry diaper, etc., are present and pretty well developed at birth. If any one of these fleshly desires is not met, immediately the lower lip goes out, tears start to flow, and the vocal cords are prepared to sound the alarm! A baby has all his physical needs catered to by his parents, and the flesh is gratified. Over, and over, and over, and over, this is the pattern, from birth and into childhood. Now comes the time when the child realizes that everyone else’s happiness is important, too. I shouldn’t pull my sister’s hair because it hurts her - I never realized that before! A decision must be made to either do what is right at the expense of my fun, or gratify my flesh and have fun at my sister’s expense...The golden rule and other such "obvious" moral laws begin to dawn on the young mind, and at some point he becomes accountable to obey.

The crux of the matter is that the sensibilities are developed at a much faster rate than the intellect and conscience are cultivated. This spells eventual disaster for every man, on the day we first make that choice to stray. Praise is to Jesus Christ, who delivers us from that universal bondage of death that results! This idea of a mature flesh conquering an immature intellect and a weak will, and precipitating the whole man into sin, can definitely be developed. For the purposes of this article, this brief explanation will suffice to answer the question at hand.

Solomon said, "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (Eccl 7:29.) Men are wicked for many reasons.... the devil’s influence, the world, the flesh.... but certainly not because they were born that way. Men make for themselves a wicked heart, by submitting to aforementioned influences, just as sinless Adam did in the Garden, instead of believing God. The Bible clearly represents the sinfulness of man as the great obstacle to overcome, and the reason for the Gospel’s arrival. Hopefully, with sound doctrine we might save ourselves and them that hear us (1 Tim. 4:16)! God Bless!

• < Prev
• Next >