The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Age of Accountability?

The current form of my understanding is as follows: We all were involved in Adam's sin, and thus receive both the corrupted nature that was his after the fall, and the guilt and condemnation that attach to his sin. With this matter of guilt, however, just as with the imputation of Christ's righteousness, there must be some conscious and voluntary decision on our part. Until this is the case, there is only a conditional imputation of guilt. Thus, there is no condemnation until one reaches the age of responsibility. If a child dies before becoming capable of making genuine moral decisions, the contingent imputation of Adamic sin does not become actual, and the child will experience the same type of future existence with the Lord as will those who have reached the age of moral responsibility and had their sins forgiven as a result of accepting the offer of salvation based upon Christ's atoning death. The problem of the corrupted nature of such persons is presumably dealt with in the way that the imperfectly sanctified nature of believers will be glorified. What is the nature of the voluntary decision that ends our childish innocence and constitutes a ratification of the first sin, the fall? One position on this question is that there is no final imputation of the first sin until we commit a sin of our own, thus ratifying Adam's sin. Unlike the Arminian view, this position holds that at the moment of our first sin we become guilty of both our own sin and the original sin as well. There is another position, however, one which is preferable in that it more fully preserves the parallelism between our accepting the work of Christ and that of Adam, and at the same time it more clearly points out our responsibility for the first sin. We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency toward sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time. We would in that case repent of it and might even, if there is an awareness of the gospel, ask God for forgiveness and cleansing. At the very least there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. By placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having committed any sin of our own.

The parallelism that Paul draws in Romans 5 between Adam and Christ in their relationship to us is impressive. He asserts that in some parallel way what each of them did has its influence on us (as Adam's sin leads to death, so Christ's act of righteousness leads to life). What is this parallel? If, as we might be inclined to think, the condemnation and guilt of Adam are imputed to us without there being on our part any sort of conscious choice of his act, the same would necessarily hold true of the imputation of Christ's righteousness and redeeming work. But does his death justify us simply by virtue of his identification with humanity through the incarnation and independently of whether we make a conscious and personal acceptance of his work? And do all humans have the grace of Christ imputed to them, just as all have Adam's sin imputed to them? The usual answer of evangelicals is no; there is abundant evidence that there are two classes of persons, the lost and the saved, and that only a decision to accept the work of Christ makes it effective in our lives. But if this is the case, then would not the imputation of guilt based upon the action of Adam, albeit Adam as including us, require some sort of volitional choice as well? If there is no "unconscious faith," can there be "unconscious sin"? And what are we to say of infants who die? Despite having participated in that first sin, they are somehow accepted and saved. Although they have made no conscious choice of Christ's work (or of Adam's sin for that matter), the spiritual effects of the curse are negated in their case. While some theologians preserve the parallelism by allowing both unconscious or unconditional imputation of Adam's guilt and Christ's righteousness, another available alternative seems preferable.

John_C said:
Since Erickson is one of the principal proponents of what is called Moderate Calvinism, can he be considered a Calvinist?

It comes down to this. Those who believe in an "age of accountability" put the emphasis on man's choosing because they believe in man’s free will. This is a serious error. Salvation is of God's will, on whosoever He will, not of man's free will. So those who hold this "age of accountability," see their children in some sort of probationary state and don’t believe in God's Sovereign right to save whoever He chooses and not be in obligation to save only those who choose Him.

Tom said:

Wes

.... as you probably know even CH Spurgeon believed in an age of accountability. I could list quite a few big names today that also do and they don't believe man has a free will.

Tom wrote:

Just so you know, I lean towards there not being an age of accountability, but I am not dogmatic about it.

With this matter of guilt, however, just as with the imputation of Christ's righteousness, there must be some conscious and voluntary decision on our part. Until this is the case, there is only a conditional imputation of guilt. Thus, there is no condemnation until one reaches the age of responsibility.

"In Adam's fall we sinned all." By his disobedience we have all been constituted sinners (Rom. 5:19). As a result of our natural relationship with him we have come to share in his depravity from the very beginning of our existence. We are flawed from conception. None of us has a "normal" birth.

Tom said:

Sorry, I used Erickson because I thought he was a Calvinist. I could have used Spurgeon or any other Calvinist, such a MacArthur, Piper, etc...