Age of Accountability and Finite Divine Punishment
March 07 2007
A problem came to me quite clearly when I was thinking. How I arrived at the problem is actually kinda funny because I don't remember how my train of thought got to this place.
It goes like this. You can't impose a human sense of justice onto God for some circumstances and then retract that sense for others. Actually, most Calvinists circumvent this issue quite efficiently, for no human understanding of God's justice is required as a result of their conception of God's sovereignty. Most Arminians would agree that God does have the right, but would argue that God does not act unjustly (in the human sense) the majority of the time (i.e. God does not condemn people who can do nothing to avoid their fate). This problem is not a Arminianism vs. Calvinism problem, though.
Most Christians rebutt the question "Why would God condemn small children?" with the age-old Age of Accountability. Funny how this concept is almost universally accepted yet biblically unfounded, where biblically unfounded means that no verse in the Bible says that small children will automatically go to Heaven. In this case, we would all have to agree that some human sense of justice is imposed on God's actions, in that God would not condemn the innocent based on what we believe about God in general; but no specific Scriptural basis can be used for this belief.
Suffice to say, some of the same people who adhere to the "Age of Accountability" will straight-facedly tell you that God will condemn those who have never heard the Gospel eternally with same measure of punishment as Satan himself. So I have to wonder where is the justice in that? If you look at Revelation, nothing says that those thrown into the Lake of Fire will burn eternally except Satan. So, I'm going to assume that the Second Death is just that--the end to those souls. You cannot impose a sense of justice (the age of accountability) and then retract it (the condemnation and equal punishment of everyone who dies without being saved). It's flawed reasoning.
It goes like this. You can't impose a human sense of justice onto God for some circumstances and then retract that sense for others. Actually, most Calvinists circumvent this issue quite efficiently, for no human understanding of God's justice is required as a result of their conception of God's sovereignty. Most Arminians would agree that God does have the right, but would argue that God does not act unjustly (in the human sense) the majority of the time (i.e. God does not condemn people who can do nothing to avoid their fate). This problem is not a Arminianism vs. Calvinism problem, though.
Most Christians rebutt the question "Why would God condemn small children?" with the age-old Age of Accountability. Funny how this concept is almost universally accepted yet biblically unfounded, where biblically unfounded means that no verse in the Bible says that small children will automatically go to Heaven. In this case, we would all have to agree that some human sense of justice is imposed on God's actions, in that God would not condemn the innocent based on what we believe about God in general; but no specific Scriptural basis can be used for this belief.
Suffice to say, some of the same people who adhere to the "Age of Accountability" will straight-facedly tell you that God will condemn those who have never heard the Gospel eternally with same measure of punishment as Satan himself. So I have to wonder where is the justice in that? If you look at Revelation, nothing says that those thrown into the Lake of Fire will burn eternally except Satan. So, I'm going to assume that the Second Death is just that--the end to those souls. You cannot impose a sense of justice (the age of accountability) and then retract it (the condemnation and equal punishment of everyone who dies without being saved). It's flawed reasoning.
JM Vajda
March 08 2007
Isaiah 7:
15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. [context -- the messiah] I think this verse implies that one has a cognitive level of when things can be wrong, though it isn't does follow directly from this passage.
2 Samuel 12:
22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." [context -- David's illegitimate son died in childbirth.] What does it mean by "I will go to him"? Perhaps it means that David will die (they will both go to the Sheol), or perhaps it means that the baby is in Heaven.
JM Vajda
March 08 2007
Aside from that, divine election of those saved (before birth, before the foundations of the world) can be also seen in Romans 9:
10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." [context -- God's sovereign choice]
