What is the age of accountability?

[OMC]

My claims/faith affirms Paul's entire anthropology and theology, which is why I claim Christians share the mind of Paul and Christ.
Rom. 1:20 refers to humans who have sufficient revelation of God for saving faith and so have no excuse if they reject Him.
2Tim. 3:15 refers to humans who had godly parents and thus who loved/believed in God from infancy.
God's desire per 1Tim. 2:3-4 and Matt. 7:7 implies MFW, which I know you tulipists reject--from infancy?

You are correct that I began life with a bias toward Christian faith, which is why I conduct the thought experiment in the Apologetics thread so atheists will not accuse me of cheating on the exam when the Propensity Principle indicates Christianity is the best belief and intellectual answer to the most important question in life.
Calling that "category collapse" is indeed your preference, not a term used in Scripture.

Your claims don’t “affirm Paul’s anthropology”; they revise it by turning Romans 1:20 into a statement about human ability rather than human accountability — Paul says revelation leaves people without excuse, not with sufficient moral power, and 2 Tim 3:15 doesn’t prove MFW from infancy, it proves Timothy had special revelation through godly parents, exactly the opposite of your “neutral seeker” model.
God’s desire in 1 Tim 2:3–4 doesn’t imply human capacity; it implies divine generosity, and Matthew 7:7 is spoken to disciples, not to unregenerate truth‑seekers.
Your thought experiment exists only because your system needs a hypothetical man who begins with no revelation, but Paul says every human begins with revelation already in place — the knowledge of God, the moral law written on the heart, and the universal posture of suppression.
That’s why your “Propensity Principle” treats unbelief as an intellectual puzzle instead of a moral rebellion, and why your categories collapse: you’re trying to preserve philosophical neutrality where Paul insists on dead vs alive, flesh vs Spirit, Adam vs Christ.
And no, “category collapse” isn’t my preference — it’s the unavoidable result of taking Paul’s anthropology seriously rather than reshaping it to fit your apologetics framework.

 

[GWH]

Your claims don’t “affirm Paul’s anthropology”; they revise it by turning Romans 1:20 into a statement about human ability rather than human accountability — Paul says revelation leaves people without excuse, not with sufficient moral power, and 2 Tim 3:15 doesn’t prove MFW from infancy, it proves Timothy had special revelation through godly parents, exactly the opposite of your “neutral seeker” model.
God’s desire in 1 Tim 2:3–4 doesn’t imply human capacity; it implies divine generosity, and Matthew 7:7 is spoken to disciples, not to unregenerate truth‑seekers.
Your thought experiment exists only because your system needs a hypothetical man who begins with no revelation, but Paul says every human begins with revelation already in place — the knowledge of God, the moral law written on the heart, and the universal posture of suppression.
That’s why your “Propensity Principle” treats unbelief as an intellectual puzzle instead of a moral rebellion, and why your categories collapse: you’re trying to preserve philosophical neutrality where Paul insists on dead vs alive, flesh vs Spirit, Adam vs Christ.
And no, “category collapse” isn’t my preference — it’s the unavoidable result of taking Paul’s anthropology seriously rather than reshaping it to fit your apologetics framework.

Human ability is what makes humans accountable, which I know sticks in your tulip craw/framework.
Souls are without excuse because they could repent, but refuse to do so. IOW, 1Tim. 2:3-4 and 2Thes, 2:10
indicate BOTH divine enabling AND human volition. Having knowledge via special revelation does not nullify MFW.
In Matt. 7:7 Jesus urges everyone to become His disciple, but I know y'all kick against the goad of God's omnilove.

The purpose of the thought experiment is to encourage atheists to be unbiased and consider good reasons to believe in the NT God as the Answer/Sountion/Way to/thru life's puzzle/maze.

 

[OMC]

Human ability is what makes humans accountable, which I know sticks in your tulip craw/framework.
Souls are without excuse because they could repent, but refuse to do so. IOW, 1Tim. 2:3-4 and 2Thes, 2:10
indicate BOTH divine enabling AND human volition. Having knowledge via special revelation does not nullify MFW.
In Matt. 7:7 Jesus urges everyone to become His disciple, but I know y'all kick against the goad of God's omnilove.

The purpose of the thought experiment is to encourage atheists to be unbiased and consider good reasons to believe in the NT God as the Answer/Sountion/Way to/thru life's puzzle/maze.

If you think “human ability makes humans accountable,” then congratulations, you’ve reinvented Pelagius with a Romans‑1 sticker slapped on top; Paul says people are “without excuse” because they suppress what they already know, not because they possess some shiny inner moral engine waiting to be revved, and your insistence that 1 Tim 2:3–4 proves universal ability is adorable given that Paul literally says the opposite in 2 Thess 2:10 — they perish because they refuse, not because they lack opportunity.
Timothy’s childhood faith doesn’t prove MFW‑from‑infancy; it proves his mother and grandmother taught him Scripture, which is the exact opposite of your “neutral seeker in New Zealand” fantasy.
And your claim that Matthew 7:7 is Jesus urging “everyone” to become disciples is precious, considering He’s speaking to people who already are disciples — but sure, let’s pretend the Sermon on the Mount is a gospel tract for atheists.
Your thought experiment doesn’t make atheists unbiased; it makes them imagine a world Paul says doesn’t exist — a world where humans begin with zero revelation instead of knowledge, conscience, and suppression.
You keep trying to turn unbelief into a logic puzzle because it flatters your apologetics system, but Paul calls it rebellion, not a maze, and the only “category collapse” happening here is your attempt to squeeze Adam, Christ, flesh, Spirit, death, and life into a philosophical diagram that Scripture never asked for.

 

[GWH]

If you think “human ability makes humans accountable,” then congratulations, you’ve reinvented Pelagius with a Romans‑1 sticker slapped on top; Paul says people are “without excuse” because they suppress what they already know, not because they possess some shiny inner moral engine waiting to be revved, and your insistence that 1 Tim 2:3–4 proves universal ability is adorable given that Paul literally says the opposite in 2 Thess 2:10 — they perish because they refuse, not because they lack opportunity.
Timothy’s childhood faith doesn’t prove MFW‑from‑infancy; it proves his mother and grandmother taught him Scripture, which is the exact opposite of your “neutral seeker in New Zealand” fantasy.
And your claim that Matthew 7:7 is Jesus urging “everyone” to become disciples is precious, considering He’s speaking to people who already are disciples — but sure, let’s pretend the Sermon on the Mount is a gospel tract for atheists.
Your thought experiment doesn’t make atheists unbiased; it makes them imagine a world Paul says doesn’t exist — a world where humans begin with zero revelation instead of knowledge, conscience, and suppression.
You keep trying to turn unbelief into a logic puzzle because it flatters your apologetics system, but Paul calls it rebellion, not a maze, and the only “category collapse” happening here is your attempt to squeeze Adam, Christ, flesh, Spirit, death, and life into a philosophical diagram that Scripture never asked for.

Suppressing/resisting knowledge of God/refusing to love truth is an ability known as God's permissive will,
which I know contradicts your tulip diagram.
Faith from infancy can be repudiated, and a missionary daughter friend repenting of her saving faith is what made me realize
how ill-prepared I was to defend my own faith, being raised in the same church with inadequate teaching.
The sermon on the mount was addressed to everyone in the crowd, both unbelievers and disciples (Matt. 5:1).
Zero bias would be a big improvement as a starting point for atheists.
Life may be viewed as a puzzle framed by the question in Acts 16:30.
Paul does not call anything a category collapse.

 

[OMC]

Suppressing/resisting knowledge of God/refusing to love truth is an ability known as God's permissive will,
which I know contradicts your tulip diagram.
Faith from infancy can be repudiated, and a missionary daughter friend repenting of her saving faith is what made me realize
how ill-prepared I was to defend my own faith, being raised in the same church with inadequate teaching.
The sermon on the mount was addressed to everyone in the crowd, both unbelievers and disciples (Matt. 5:1).
Zero bias would be a big improvement as a starting point for atheists.
Life may be viewed as a puzzle framed by the question in Acts 16:30.
Paul does not call anything a category collapse.

You keep trying to baptize “permissive will” into a moral‑ability engine, but Paul doesn’t say humans suppress the truth because God permits their noble inner freedom — he says they suppress it because they are in the flesh, hostile to God, and unable to submit (Rom 8:7–8), which is why your “suppression = ability” move is just Pelagius with a Reformed paint job.
Your missionary‑daughter anecdote doesn’t prove “faith from infancy can be repudiated,” it proves exactly what Paul says: not all Israel is Israel, and external exposure isn’t regeneration.
And no, the Sermon on the Mount wasn’t Jesus handing out seeker‑friendly invitations to the crowd;
Matthew 5:1 says He sat down and taught His disciples, with the crowd overhearing — which is why treating “ask, seek, knock” as a universal altar call is theologically adorable but exegetically impossible.
Your “zero bias” fantasy for atheists contradicts Paul’s anthropology entirely — he says no one starts at zero, everyone starts with knowledge, conscience, and suppression, which is why your thought experiment imagines a world Paul says doesn’t exist.
And of course Paul doesn’t use the phrase “category collapse” — that’s my shorthand for the way your system tries to cram Adam vs Christ, flesh vs Spirit, dead vs alive, and suppression vs faith into a philosophical maze instead of the moral rebellion Paul actually describes.

 

[GWH]

You keep trying to baptize “permissive will” into a moral‑ability engine, but Paul doesn’t say humans suppress the truth because God permits their noble inner freedom — he says they suppress it because they are in the flesh, hostile to God, and unable to submit (Rom 8:7–8), which is why your “suppression = ability” move is just Pelagius with a Reformed paint job.
Your missionary‑daughter anecdote doesn’t prove “faith from infancy can be repudiated,” it proves exactly what Paul says: not all Israel is Israel, and external exposure isn’t regeneration.
And no, the Sermon on the Mount wasn’t Jesus handing out seeker‑friendly invitations to the crowd;
Matthew 5:1 says He sat down and taught His disciples, with the crowd overhearing — which is why treating “ask, seek, knock” as a universal altar call is theologically adorable but exegetically impossible.
Your “zero bias” fantasy for atheists contradicts Paul’s anthropology entirely — he says no one starts at zero, everyone starts with knowledge, conscience, and suppression, which is why your thought experiment imagines a world Paul says doesn’t exist.
And of course Paul doesn’t use the phrase “category collapse” — that’s my shorthand for the way your system tries to cram Adam vs Christ, flesh vs Spirit, dead vs alive, and suppression vs faith into a philosophical maze instead of the moral rebellion Paul actually describes.

We know you tulipists ignore Scripture indicating God's permissive will, but it would be more appropriate to discuss that topic on the Resolving Problematic Interpretations thread/OP, so I will look for you there.

The question for you regarding this OP is what I asked PT in post #99:

Scripture assumes all normal adults are morally accountable, and the story of A&E indicates when that stage/age occurs.
Moral accountability is defined as being able to conceive of God and to have a conscience based on the Golden Rule/divine love,
which in my experience occurred by about the age/stage of eight.

Lanolin claims not until 32, but she seems to confuse awareness of the possibility of God with faith that God exists.
What does your experience indicate? (I think your parents resembled Lanolin's, but would you say your awareness of God did not occur until about age/stage 32?!)

 

[OMC]

We know you tulipists ignore Scripture indicating God's permissive will, but it would be more appropriate to discuss that topic on the Resolving Problematic Interpretations thread/OP, so I will look for you there.

The question for you regarding this OP is what I asked PT in post #99:

Scripture assumes all normal adults are morally accountable, and the story of A&E indicates when that stage/age occurs.
Moral accountability is defined as being able to conceive of God and to have a conscience based on the Golden Rule/divine love,
which in my experience occurred by about the age/stage of eight.

Lanolin claims not until 32, but she seems to confuse awareness of the possibility of God with faith that God exists.
What does your experience indicate? (I think your parents resembled Lanolin's, but would you say your awareness of God did not occur until about age/stage 32?!)

Your entire question assumes a premise Paul never gives you — that “moral accountability” is a developmental milestone tied to age, cognitive maturity, or psychological readiness — but Paul grounds accountability in revelation possessed, not age reached; humans are accountable the moment they possess the knowledge of God (Rom 1:19–20) and the moment conscience begins its work of accusing or excusing (Rom 2:14–15), which is why Scripture never gives an age, never ties accountability to childhood development, and never treats awareness of God as something that “arrives” at eight, thirty‑two, or any other number.
The story of Adam_and_Eve doesn’t teach a developmental timeline — it teaches that accountability begins the moment a person knows the command and violates it, which is exactly how Paul frames universal guilt.
Your appeal to “permissive will” doesn’t rescue MFW because Paul says the flesh is unable to submit (Rom 8:7–8), not merely permitted to rebel, and your anecdotal timeline (“I became aware at eight,” “Lanolin at thirty‑two”) only proves that awareness of God and saving faith are not the same thing.
My own experience doesn’t change Paul’s anthropology: I was aware of God long before I believed, which is precisely Paul’s point — awareness is universal, suppression is universal, accountability is universal, and the only “age” Scripture recognizes is the moment a person becomes a knower of God who chooses suppression over submission.

 

[GWH]

Your entire question assumes a premise Paul never gives you — that “moral accountability” is a developmental milestone tied to age, cognitive maturity, or psychological readiness — but Paul grounds accountability in revelation possessed, not age reached; humans are accountable the moment they possess the knowledge of God (Rom 1:19–20) and the moment conscience begins its work of accusing or excusing (Rom 2:14–15), which is why Scripture never gives an age, never ties accountability to childhood development, and never treats awareness of God as something that “arrives” at eight, thirty‑two, or any other number.
The story of Adam_and_Eve doesn’t teach a developmental timeline — it teaches that accountability begins the moment a person knows the command and violates it, which is exactly how Paul frames universal guilt.
Your appeal to “permissive will” doesn’t rescue MFW because Paul says the flesh is unable to submit (Rom 8:7–8), not merely permitted to rebel, and your anecdotal timeline (“I became aware at eight,” “Lanolin at thirty‑two”) only proves that awareness of God and saving faith are not the same thing.
My own experience doesn’t change Paul’s anthropology: I was aware of God long before I believed, which is precisely Paul’s point — awareness is universal, suppression is universal, accountability is universal, and the only “age” Scripture recognizes is the moment a person becomes a knower of God who chooses suppression over submission.

Yes, and I doubt that Lanolin was not aware of God long before she believed.
I view A&E as illustrative of moral development coinciding with revelation,
which for normal humans is closer to the age of eight than to 32, because
it coincides with the stage of mental development known as abstract reasoning.
I noticed you did not want to share what age that occurred in your life for some abstract reason.

 

[OMC]

Yes, and I doubt that Lanolin was not aware of God long before she believed.
I view A&E as illustrative of moral development coinciding with revelation,
which for normal humans is closer to the age of eight than to 32, because
it coincides with the stage of mental development known as abstract reasoning.
I noticed you did not want to share what age that occurred in your life for some abstract reason.

You’re still trying to make abstract reasoning the biblical basis for moral accountability, but Paul doesn’t link accountability to cognitive development; he connects it to the revelation one has and the functioning of the conscience. And I did mention my age. post93

 

[Lanolin]

Awareness and actually knowing God are two different things.

Knowing God and what displeases Him and why, is something everyone will figure out sooner or later, or live with the consequences of our sins if we don't look to Jesus to be forgiven.

Capiche?

 

[tourist]

What age was it for you..?

God's commandments are not taught all the time, esp for non Jewish people (Gentiles) .613 applied to those circumcised.
Usually for most christian religions it's the 10 that are drummed into people's heads, SDAs especially. Other churches say there are only 2 we need to remember.

For me it was probably 8 or 9 years old.

 

[Lanolin]

For me it was probably 8 or 9 years old.

Were you a churchgoing boy?

Or your parents told you off for offending God? Just wondering. What did you do that was wrong? I mean your 8 or 9 year old sins. Can you remember?

 

[GWH]

You’re still trying to make abstract reasoning the biblical basis for moral accountability, but Paul doesn’t link accountability to cognitive development; he connects it to the revelation one has and the functioning of the conscience. And I did mention my age. post93

The question was something like this: Scripture assumes all normal adults are morally accountable, which is defined as being able to conceive of God and to have a conscience (consciousness of sin) based on the Golden Rule/divine love, which in my experience occurred by about the age/stage of eight, but what does your experience indicate?

Your answer was "I remember knowing good and bad before kindergarten. Not understanding evil as I do now, but I knew what being bad was."

I see no mention of God or sin or of when you believed/loved God, so please clarify, because if you were precocious enough to be morally accountable due to understanding all of that, I am glad you did not die at that age and go to hell!

 

[OMC]

The question was something like this: Scripture assumes all normal adults are morally accountable, which is defined as being able to conceive of God and to have a conscience (consciousness of sin) based on the Golden Rule/divine love, which in my experience occurred by about the age/stage of eight, but what does your experience indicate?

Your answer was "I remember knowing good and bad before kindergarten. Not understanding evil as I do now, but I knew what being bad was."

I see no mention of God or sin or of when you believed/loved God, so please clarify, because if you were precocious enough to be morally accountable due to understanding all of that, I am glad you did not die at that age and go to hell!

Your entire question still assumes moral accountability = the moment a child can articulate God and sin, but Paul grounds accountability in revelation possessed and conscience functioning, not in the age when someone first verbalizes their theology, which is why my memory of knowing right and wrong before kindergarten doesn’t imply precocious damnation, it simply shows conscience precedes the later, fuller grasp of evil.

 

[Lanolin]

I was 2 when I learned not to go to a part of the house that was being renovated.

I also think I was 3 when I accidentally broke one of my dad 's vinyl records, and he must have yelled at me or smacked me or something, because I did something wrong. I am not in the habit of breaking things. I am glad to say to this day I have never broken another record.

 

[Blade]

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?

I truly don't know. Seen kids much younger in Church hands up tears falling down there face.. they knew Him. That oh can't Can't express the right words of how that makes me feel

 

[PaulThomson]

Scripture assumes all normal adults are morally accountable, and the story of A&E indicates when that stage/age occurs.
Moral accountability is defined as being able to conceive of God and to have a conscience based on the Golden Rule/divine love,
which in my experience occurred by about the age/stage of eight.

Lanolin claims not until 32, but she seems to confuse awareness of the possibility of God with faith that God exists.
What does your experience indicate?

Accountable to whom?

Paul says -
Rom 7:9
I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin came to life (anazaO, up-live) and I died.

Paul also says -
Rom 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

And Gen. says -
Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Gen 3:8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where areyou?”
Gen 3:10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”
Gen 3:11 And He said, “Who told you that you werenaked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

It seems God was not angry at them and holding them accountable. He knew they had disobeyed, but still came looking for the usualk fellowship with them. But they were ashamed, holding themselves accountable. So, biblically, the time we begin to hold ourselves accountable for doing wrong is when we first understand we have broken a law. God's redemption deals with our shame at falling short of what we perceive as the standards we should attain, so that we can approach God without the fear of Him hating and punishing us, because we attribute our gracelessness to Him, making Him in our own image.

Luk 1:74 To grant us that we,
Being delivered from the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear,
Luk 1:75 In holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life.
.
The gospel is God's way of releasing us from our anthropomorphic concepts of God as a stern angry vindictive judge, who despises us for our imperfections.

 

[GWH]

Your entire question still assumes moral accountability = the moment a child can articulate God and sin, but Paul grounds accountability in revelation possessed and conscience functioning, not in the age when someone first verbalizes their theology, which is why my memory of knowing right and wrong before kindergarten doesn’t imply precocious damnation, it simply shows conscience precedes the later, fuller grasp of evil.

Yes, both Paul and I ground moral accountability in revelation (Rom. 1:20) and conscience (Rom. 2:14-15), which occurs at about the age of eight and is called the mental stage of abstract thinking/understanding.

Your "precedes" and "later" is what some refer to as "parents representing God" and "awareness of God Himself".

 

[GWH]

I was 2 when I learned not to go to a part of the house that was being renovated.

I also think I was 3 when I accidentally broke one of my dad 's vinyl records, and he must have yelled at me or smacked me or something, because I did something wrong. I am not in the habit of breaking things. I am glad to say to this day I have never broken another record.

I was about twice that age when I accidently broke the model of the U.S. Navy ship above his desk, which made me concerned,
but he acted as though I did nothing wrong. I am glad to say that showed me what God's love is like.

 

[GWH]

Accountable to whom?

Paul says -
Rom 7:9
I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin came to life (anazaO, up-live) and I died.

Paul also says -
Rom 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

And Gen. says -
Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Gen 3:8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where areyou?”
Gen 3:10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”
Gen 3:11 And He said, “Who told you that you werenaked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

It seems God was not angry at them and holding them accountable. He knew they had disobeyed, but still came looking for the usualk fellowship with them. But they were ashamed, holding themselves accountable. So, biblically, the time we begin to hold ourselves accountable for doing wrong is when we first understand we have broken a law. God's redemption deals with our shame at falling short of what we perceive as the standards we should attain, so that we can approach God without the fear of Him hating and punishing us, because we attribute our gracelessness to Him, making Him in our own image.

Luk 1:74 To grant us that we,
Being delivered from the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear,
Luk 1:75 In holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life.
.
The gospel is God's way of releasing us from our anthropomorphic concepts of God as a stern angry vindictive judge, who despises us for our imperfections.

To God, of course!

Rom. 7:9 does not jibe with Acts 26:4-5, does it?

In Rom.5:13 Paul appears to think God excused those who sinned apart from the law/knowing only general revelation. does he not?

So, biblically, we first sin when we first understand we have broken God's law?

Re "The gospel is God's way of releasing us from our anthropomorphic concepts of God as a stern angry vindictive judge, who despises us for our imperfections.": Yes, how blessed some of us were to have loving/godly parents who gave/taught us the opposite concept!