Age of Accountability: Conception

Many Christians struggle to understand the age of accountability for a child. One thing which is agreed upon is that there is no mention of an age of accountability in the Bible. Church history in America has contributed greatly to the struggle Christians face today concerning this topic. Many individuals who have lost young loved ones have a very understandable concern for the eternal welfare of the soul of the child who has passed from this world into eternity. Unfortunately, the way the age of accountability issue has come to be understood by many leaves quite a bit of confusion and lack of clarity. My intention is to bring a sense of comfort and genuine hope by showing how the age of accountability has unfolded in our nation, and by sharing what the Bible says concerning the Lord’s mercy.

From the 1600s to the early 1800s, Sunday school teachers grappled with the age of accountability, and how to help children grow in their understanding of the biblical truths, in hopes that this would result in true conversions. As society changed over the years, and Sunday school teachers grew in understanding of the psyche of children, the age of accountability continued to be interpreted as being younger and younger.[i]

In the 1820s and 1830s, Sunday school workers felt that children’s most distinctive characteristic was how moldable and susceptible they are to “impressions.” Children were often being described as wax-like creatures, meaning that they are tender and pliable, and more capable of impressions at younger ages than in later life. They attributed this pliability to their openness to feeling, which stems from them being immature in matters that require a logical thought process. Unlike adults who, in order to deal with the world around them, use thought and reason, children were found to be, to a large degree, governed by their feelings. It was concluded that the mind of a child is more likely to be barricaded or guarded from pernicious sentiments, or damaging thoughts. Sunday school workers were known to occasionally refer to children’s mental capabilities, but moreover they usually referred to their moral character, their emotions, or as they would state it, their hearts. This is the characteristic area of a child which was most easily and permanently “impressed.”[ii]

They felt the entire future life of a child could be consciously molded, and that bad influences could be countered through institutions and through positive fashioning by teachers, geared to the individual child (because each child differed in experience), through the child's emotional life, rather than through his or her intellect. However, Sunday school workers ran into difficult theological ground when attempting to apply these principles to religious teaching. Their difficulty was with the doctrines of original sin and inability. They could not in good conscience biblically hold to the philosophy that a child’s religious nature was completely pliable. Such a view would have been heretical, because it would imply that people would have the power to save a sinner through the experience of conversion, which is something only God can accomplish.[iii]

Except for the Methodists who believed that a child is only capable of acting from self-love, different theological positions had been worked out by various evangelical denominations concerning the issue of childhood sinfulness.[iv]

Nathaniel Taylor and Charles Finney made theological revisions in the 1820s and 1830s to the positions of most evangelicals. Their theories were then used by evangelicals to argue that until reaching an age of capability to make free rational choices, children were morally neutral. Once able to make their own decisions which lead them to acts of self-love, conversion would then become a requirement for salvation.[v]

Given the sinful nature of every human being, and the truth of the gospel which must be honored by every individual for salvation, the struggle to identify when a person becomes responsible for their personal response to the gospel makes good sense. However, being that people are individuals with differing mental capacities makes it impossible to apply any specific age of accountability. Some determinations have been made through analysis of the Scriptures, but being that the Bible does not speak directly about any particular age of accountability, the validity of each conclusion is debatable.

The most commonly suggested age of accountability is thirteen. The basis for this is derived from Jewish custom where a child becomes an adult at 13 years of age. However, as I already stated, the Bible gives no direct support to this being the age of accountability. It is more reasonable to say that the age of accountability varies from child to child, because accountability requires that the child is capable of making a decision of faith in Christ, or a decision against Christ. Charles Spurgeon believed that “a child of five can as truly be saved and regenerated as an adult.” This is true, but it does not mean God holds every child at age 5 responsible for making a truly conscious decision for or against Christ.

It makes good sense to investigate the purpose for accountability to begin with. From the 1600s to the 1800s people were being taught about Christ as the nation was being formed and developed. There were plenty of adults who were being introduced to Christianity through Sunday school efforts who were at a later age coming to understand their need of a savior, and of righteous living. As time went on, it became increasingly evident that showing these needs to individuals at earlier ages made better sense. This would allow for the gospel to bear the greatest fruit throughout the life span of each individual. The idea was that the earlier people could get a hold of salvation, the less consequences of sin they would have to struggle with throughout their lives. Regardless of age though, every individual must become conscious of their sin, of their hopeless state before God, and of the mercy and grace of God through faith in Christ for repentance.

This being the case, we can more safely conclude that prior to any such capability of an individual to acknowledge their sinfulness and hopelessness, the mercy of God remains though there is no occasion for repentance. There is more in Scripture to support God’s mercy apart from works, than what might be used to assert any particular age of accountability.

Now, this is in no way to discount human accountability to God; “those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:17). So, there is a need, for individuals who are capable, to receive grace and righteousness.

The human condition apart from Christ is hopeless and desperate. The Bible does teach of an age of accountability, but not in the way people normally refer to it. The Biblical age of accountability is conception. This accountability is normally referred to as original sin. Conception is the only clear age or accountability given in the Bible. Every last person is held accountable to Christ by the sinful nature into which we have been conceived. “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam” (Romans 5:12-14). “by the one man’s offense many died” (Romans 5:15); “judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation” (Romans 5:16).

Such a dilemma can only be remedied through the mercy of God. All who are capable of receiving or rejecting God’s mercy are accountable for receiving it, and for honoring Him for it. But we have no reason to believe that those who pass from this world, without ever having the capacity or occasion for consciously receiving His mercy and honoring Him for it, would not have His eternal mercy granted to them through Christ’s righteousness imputed to them.

Those who are conflicted between grace and works might have difficulty with what I just said, but Paul said it this way: “So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 11:5-6). Some might argue that God’s mercy requires a response. This is true when an individual has the capacity and occasion to respond, but the responsibility to respond is due to the magnitude of God’s mercy. Should such a mercy then be considered void in a situation where an individual is not able to respond? No! It should not be! Wouldn’t considering it void actually be cheapening the amazing mercy for which God expects a response from those who have the capacity and the occasion to respond to it? Yes! It would!

God’s merciful decision is to save the world through Christ, and is not based on any works of ours at all; “the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.” (Romans 5:15) “the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification” (Romans 5:16) “it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy” (Romans 9:16).

Perhaps one reason God allows children to be taken from this world, before having the capacity to make a decision of faith, is to help us realize that when He says that salvation is not by works so no man can boast, He means it. Their death is also a reminder that “by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one” (Romans 5:17). So, if not for God’s mercy, the children who pass from this world into eternity would indeed be lost forever.

I believe all who lose a child prior to the child’s capacity to make a conscious decision for Christ can take comfort in realizing that whether an individual has the capacity to respond to Christ or not, the mercy of God is what we depend on, and not in our response to Christ per se, though the saved who are capable do respond appropriately to His mercy. “What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory” (Romans 9:22-23). Where there is no capacity and no occasion for repentance, there is no hardening of the heart towards God, and no reason to suspect that such a vessel is prepared for destruction, but rather for mercy and glory thanks to the sacrifice of Christ; “by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19); “the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets” (Romans 3:21). Those who are justified in God’s sight are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24).

Therefore, it is my conclusion that all insecurity concerning the eternal state of children who die before making a decision for Christ can be set aside through faith in God’s mercy. The doctrine of age of accountability is intended to make the most of God’s mercy through Christ here on earth. It is not intended to create doubt concerning the mercy of God towards those incapable of accepting God’s mercy for themselves. God is not cruel that He would withhold His mercy from them. On the contrary, “The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in mercy” (Psalm 103:8). It is in His mercy through Christ that we place our trust.

---

Footnotes

[i] Anne M. Boylan, "The Role of Conversion in Nineteenth-century Sunday Schools." American Studies 20, no. 1 (1979): 35-48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40641410.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid.