What is the age of accountability?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
31,889
11,389
113
I would think 13 but I can't find it in the Bible what the exact age is. 20 seems to be the age that God wanted his soldiers in the army.

Some churches talk about this but are vague on what the age is. It's either this or 'confirmation' or 'first communion' but since I didn't go to church when I was younger I missed out on all this.

Also is it different for boys and girls. Or the same?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tourist
There is no specific "age of accountability" stated in the Bible. Because there is no specific biblical instruction, anything that church leaders say about it is "general wisdom" at best... as are my comments below.

If the subject accountability for sin, then a person is "old enough" when they start demanding that others apologize to them for perceived wrongdoing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tourist
According to what I could find in scripture, when someone can understand God’s commands, grasp right and wrong, and knowingly choose rebellion, they are accountable; before that, they are not. Obviously, there is more than that but that's the whole of it.
 
Children are under condemnation at birth. They are accountable because they are in Adam.

This is a difficult truth for many to accept for a host of reasons and I have no doubt some will be expressed here, some rather vehemently.
 
I would think 13 but I can't find it in the Bible what the exact age is. 20 seems to be the age that God wanted his soldiers in the army.

Some churches talk about this but are vague on what the age is. It's either this or 'confirmation' or 'first communion' but since I didn't go to church when I was younger I missed out on all this.

Also is it different for boys and girls. Or the same?

Perhaps a clue about the stage of accountability is given in the story of Adam and Eve,
by the fact that they realized their nakedness/sin, failed to confess their guilt and tried to hide from God.
This probably occurs around the age of eight/a couple of years before puberty.
 
Children are under condemnation at birth. They are accountable because they are in Adam.

This is a difficult truth for many to accept for a host of reasons and I have no doubt some will be expressed here, some rather vehemently.

Yes, let us be thankful Cam DID NOT DIE AT BIRTH!!!!👿
 
Children are under condemnation at birth. They are accountable because they are in Adam.
Saying “children are under condemnation at birth because they are in Adam” overstates what Scripture actually says; the Bible teaches original corruption (Ps 51:5; Rom 5:12) but it also explicitly teaches a period of non‑accountability where a child “does not yet know good and evil” (Deut 1:39) and “does not yet know to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Isa 7:15–16).
Paul says death spread to all because all sinned, but he also says sin is not imputed where there is no law‑knowledge (Rom 5:13), which is precisely why Scripture never once depicts infants being judged.
Being “in Adam” explains mortality and corruption, not moral culpability; accountability begins when a person can discern good and evil and knowingly choose rebellion.
That’s why Jesus receives children, declares the kingdom belongs to them, and never speaks of them as condemned.
The claim collapses the distinction between corruption and culpability — Scripture does not
 
  • Like
Reactions: WayneNSO
Saying “children are under condemnation at birth because they are in Adam” overstates what Scripture actually says; the Bible teaches original corruption (Ps 51:5; Rom 5:12) but it also explicitly teaches a period of non‑accountability where a child “does not yet know good and evil” (Deut 1:39) and “does not yet know to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Isa 7:15–16).
Paul says death spread to all because all sinned, but he also says sin is not imputed where there is no law‑knowledge (Rom 5:13), which is precisely why Scripture never once depicts infants being judged.
Being “in Adam” explains mortality and corruption, not moral culpability; accountability begins when a person can discern good and evil and knowingly choose rebellion.
That’s why Jesus receives children, declares the kingdom belongs to them, and never speaks of them as condemned.
The claim collapses the distinction between corruption and culpability — Scripture does not
Every unbeliever is under condemnation...John 3:18.

God chose Adam to represent mankind. Adam's failure because all humanity's failure. The verses you shared have nothing to do with this. They deal with individual accountability for one's actions. The condemnation spoken of in those verses is immaterial to the condemnation due to Adam's sin.

It's interesting that you cited Romans 5. Notice that death reigned from Adam to Moses. Why? No law existed. No sins accruing guilt. Yet people still died. What explains this?
 
Every unbeliever is under condemnation...John 3:18.

God chose Adam to represent mankind. Adam's failure because all humanity's failure. The verses you shared have nothing to do with this. They deal with individual accountability for one's actions. The condemnation spoken of in those verses is immaterial to the condemnation due to Adam's sin.

It's interesting that you cited Romans 5. Notice that death reigned from Adam to Moses. Why? No law existed. No sins accruing guilt. Yet people still died. What explains this?
John 3:18 is not talking about infants; it is talking about those who do not believe, which is why Jesus immediately contrasts it with “he who believes.”
Condemnation in John 3 is tied to unbelief, not mere biological descent from Adam.
And yes, Adam’s sin brings corruption and mortality to all (Rom 5:12), but Paul is explicit that culpability is not assigned where moral knowledge is absent: “sin is not imputed when there is no law‑knowledge” (Rom 5:13).
That is exactly why he says “children… do not yet know good and evil” (Deut 1:39) and “before the child knows to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Isa 7:15–16).
You’re right that people died from Adam to Moses without accruing guilt through personal transgression — but Paul tells you why: death reigned because of Adam’s act, not because infants were morally accountable.
Mortality ≠ condemnation. Corruption ≠ culpability.
The text never once depicts infants being judged, never calls them “unbelievers,” and never assigns them the condemnation of John 3:18.
Jesus receives children, declares the kingdom belongs to them, and never speaks of them as under wrath. Your argument collapses two categories Paul keeps distinct: in Adam = corrupt and mortal, but accountable = knowing good and evil and choosing rebellion
 
  • Like
Reactions: WayneNSO
I would think 13 but I can't find it in the Bible what the exact age is. 20 seems to be the age that God wanted his soldiers in the army.

Some churches talk about this but are vague on what the age is. It's either this or 'confirmation' or 'first communion' but since I didn't go to church when I was younger I missed out on all this.

Also is it different for boys and girls. Or the same?
This can be a com plicated question. Part of the problem is, just what is 'Sin". It is a violation of "the law", but what law? God gave a command to Adam not to eat of the fruit of the specific tree or he would die. Now was the commandment due to God's will or was it given to prevent Adam from making a mistake with consequences that God could not undo without violating the purpose of creation?

If a parent tells their small child not to poke their finger into the hole in the ground that bees are flying in and out of, it is a command from the parent. The purpose though is not to enforce the parent's will, but to prevent harm that the parent can do nothing to stop. Disobedience by the child will result in a punishment, the bees will see to that, not the parent, but afterwards all the parent can do is to try to mitigate the suffering.

As for Adam, we do not know if he would have physically died even if he did not eat of the fruit, scripture does not tell us. Study of fossils though strongly suggests that even if Adam had not eaten, he would have physically died. But if the death was spiritual death, then it is plausible that Adam did die upon eating the fruit, and what lived on in Adam's body was not the Adam that God created.

Now for the individual, an infant does not seem to be aware that it is a distinct, separate entity. It knows that there is discomfort at times, but it also soon learns that the familiar "other" makes discomfort vanish so when the "other" appears it is a time of rejoicing and forgetting the discomfort. This can even be an unfamiliar "other" in some cases where the infant has learned that an "other" means comfort. When held by a parent who is upset or worried, the infant cries unconsolably, yet when handed to a calm "other", even if unknown to the infant, crying rapidly ceases until returned to the baffled, and still upset, parent. The infant, not seeing themselves as separate, mirrors the emotions of the person holding them.

Then, around age 7 months, the infant discovers their hands and that these hands, which can be controlled, can change the environment, the infant discovers that they can be independent of the environment. This is a delightful discovery, until the infant awakes in the middle of the night and it is dark, the infant is alone, and who knows what is in the darkness that cannot be controlled. The infant then begins to cry and scream, refusing to easily be comforted, especially by a parent who just wants the infant quiet so they can go back to bed themselves. Eventually this phase passes, but the sense of separateness will remain for the rest of the infant's life and will dictate their actions in large part for the rest of their lives. Once they, we, learn that we are separable, we must defend that separate entity, even at the cost of the real self that was created by God and interconnected with the rest of creation and God, and that protection will last until after the physical death of the person at which point, hopefully, the true self can regain control, rerecognize that they are interconnected with the rest of creation and God, and reject the false self and allow it to continue on by itself to its logical conclusion, total death as it has nothing left to feed upon given its separation from the true life of interconnectedness.

God does not enact the punishment rather the punishment is a logical consequence of our false belief and exacted by that false belief. Jesus pays the price for our sin, not because God needs a price paid, but because our false belief does. The parent, if allowed, will pay the price for the small child's disobedience in sticking their finger in the hole in the ground by addressing the bees, but how the child interprets all the actions does not necessarily fit with reality.
 
John 3:18 is not talking about infants; it is talking about those who do not believe, which is why Jesus immediately contrasts it with “he who believes.”
Condemnation in John 3 is tied to unbelief, not mere biological descent from Adam.
And yes, Adam’s sin brings corruption and mortality to all (Rom 5:12), but Paul is explicit that culpability is not assigned where moral knowledge is absent: “sin is not imputed when there is no law‑knowledge” (Rom 5:13).
That is exactly why he says “children… do not yet know good and evil” (Deut 1:39) and “before the child knows to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Isa 7:15–16).
You’re right that people died from Adam to Moses without accruing guilt through personal transgression — but Paul tells you why: death reigned because of Adam’s act, not because infants were morally accountable.
Mortality ≠ condemnation. Corruption ≠ culpability.
The text never once depicts infants being judged, never calls them “unbelievers,” and never assigns them the condemnation of John 3:18.
Jesus receives children, declares the kingdom belongs to them, and never speaks of them as under wrath. Your argument collapses two categories Paul keeps distinct: in Adam = corrupt and mortal, but accountable = knowing good and evil and choosing rebellion
You missed the point concerning sin. Death reigned from Adam to Moses. There was no law; thus, something other than an individual's sin was responsible. Every human being is liable in Adam whether they have sinned or not.
 
You missed the point concerning sin. Death reigned from Adam to Moses. There was no law; thus, something other than an individual's sin was responsible. Every human being is liable in Adam whether they have sinned or not.
When God issued a command to Adam the law came into existence. Sin was first acknowledged in the matter of Cain and Abel. Both these events are safely before Moses.
 
You missed the point concerning sin. Death reigned from Adam to Moses. There was no law; thus, something other than an individual's sin was responsible. Every human being is liable in Adam whether they have sinned or not.
yes: infants are “in Adam” and therefore subject to death. But Scripture never calls them “unbelievers,” never depicts them as objects of eschatological judgment, and consistently treats them as lacking the moral knowledge that makes sin imputable. You’re right about Adamic liability to death; you’re overextending that into full judicial condemnation, which Paul reserves for those who knowingly reject light and law.
 
yes: infants are “in Adam” and therefore subject to death. But Scripture never calls them “unbelievers,” never depicts them as objects of eschatological judgment, and consistently treats them as lacking the moral knowledge that makes sin imputable. You’re right about Adamic liability to death; you’re overextending that into full judicial condemnation, which Paul reserves for those who knowingly reject light and law.
So...a child dies in infancy. The child doesn't need to be born again? They simply goes to heaven?
 
So...a child dies in infancy. The child doesn't need to be born again? They simply goes to heaven?
Yes—if a child dies in infancy, Scripture gives no category in which that child must be born again in the Johannine sense to enter life, because the Bible never treats infants as unbelievers, never portrays them as morally accountable, and never assigns them the condemnation of John 3:18.
 
Yes—if a child dies in infancy, Scripture gives no category in which that child must be born again in the Johannine sense to enter life, because the Bible never treats infants as unbelievers, never portrays them as morally accountable, and never assigns them the condemnation of John 3:18.
John 3:5 suggests differently.
 
John 3:5 suggests differently.
John 3:5 (“unless one is born of water and Spirit…”) is spoken to a morally accountable adult, not to those Scripture explicitly says “do not yet know good and evil” (Deut 1:39) or “do not yet know to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Isa 7:15–16).
 
John 3:5 (“unless one is born of water and Spirit…”) is spoken to a morally accountable adult, not to those Scripture explicitly says “do not yet know good and evil” (Deut 1:39) or “do not yet know to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Isa 7:15–16).
You are conflating 2 different things: person accountability for sin and entrance into the kingdom of God. These are two distinct issues.

Let's say an child reached the age accountability, never sinned, and died. Would they need to be born again to go to heaven?
 
I would add to this, I should have cited Romans 5:18 to demonstrate the universal condemnation of mankind, and not John 3:18, although I believe it was adequate.