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.