;)
I Baptize Children: Does That Make Me Paedobaptist?
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology
Last Sunday I baptized five children in our early worship service. In the next couple of weeks, there are 4 or 5 more that are waiting in the wings to publicly picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Many are the fruit of an evangelistic family which adopts children and brings them to Christ (may their tribe increase!). Others came to Christ during our associational children’s camp or during our recent excursion on the Boomerang Express. I have talked to each child and they have answered my questions, satisfying me that they have professed faith in Christ and understand biblical baptism. These children range in age from about 7 to 10 years old. In the past I have baptized children as young as 5 or 6 years old.
I have read articles very critical of what I am doing. One writer called what I do a Baptist version of Paedobaptism – the baptism of children, insinuating that we are making false converts who will later tend to be very confused. In seminary, one pastor who talked to our Pastoral Ministry class told us that his church made children wait until they turned twelve to be baptized. I have heard others who have set the age even higher. Is it inadvisable to bring children to the waters of baptism?
I continue to baptize even young children who make a clear profession of faith in Christ and give evidence of a basic understanding of the purpose and meaning of baptism. I admit that it is very possible, even probable, that some of these children will, as they grow, give evidence that their profession may not have been genuine. And still, I continue to baptize them. I will join in the chorus of those who are critical of some of the tactics and strategies of some who work with children. One church in Sioux City (not SBC) gave perhaps the worst gospel presentation I have ever heard. One of our families (the evangelistic adopters I mentioned above) sent their children to the VBS alternative that this church offered. A couple of weeks later they got a letter in the mail congratulating them because their child had “made the Big JC her best friend.” That was the gospel – do you want to make the Big JC your best friend? That passed for evangelism, I guess. A relative of mine came home from Sunday School as a young boy very upset. The evangelist had come to class and left him with the impression that by not receiving Jesus as his Savior that day, he now had a black spot on his heart that would never go away. We have to be very careful when we deal with children – they are gullible, eager to please (mostly) and it would be easy to lead those children to false professions based on faulty understanding. And still, I plan to continue baptizing children who make a clear profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “Permit the little children to some to me.” I plan to do nothing to hinder children who have trusted Christ from being fully obedient to him in all things, including baptism.
My Convictions about Baptism
I believe it is my responsibility as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ to baptize anyone who comes to me with a clear profession of faith in Christ and a clear understanding of the meaning and purpose of baptism. My convictions on this issue are based on my general understanding of baptism. Last year, I wrote a series of blogs on my personal site that spell out what I believe about baptism. I will not rehash all of that now, but if you are interested, I the links to that series are here, here, here, and here. My views have been growing and developing as I have continued to study this issue, and I might word a couple of things differently (perhaps less stridently). But, essentially, those posts summarize my beliefs and I will not repeat than information here.
What we need to address today is one application of these principles. What is required for me to perform a valid baptism? Should I, after someone comes to me with a profession of faith, require instructional classes or catechisms? Should I require certain evidences and actions as proof of the validity of the baptism; signals that the discipleship process is taking hold? Should I wait for the children to reach a certain age? Or, should I baptize every person who comes to me with a clear profession of faith after I explain to them the meaning and purpose of biblical baptism? I have already stated that I am convinced of the second option. Perhaps other options exist that our readers can add for me to consider.
Reviewing the Evidence
As best I can find, there are eight baptismal stories in the book of Acts. In Acts 2:38-41, Peter finished his sermon with a call to repentance. Three thousand souls responded. Those who received the word were baptized. Simple, straightforward statement. When they received the word of God and expressed faith in Christ, they were immediately baptized. I see no evidence of any intervening actions. Conversion, then immediate baptism.
Acts 8:12-13 tells the story of Philip. When they believed the message Philip taught, they were then baptized. No one was consulted. No classes were held. Conversion, then immediate baptism.
Peter was carried off into the wilderness and met the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:37-40. He explained the gospel to this man who had been reading from a scroll of Isaiah. The Ethiopian asked if there was any reason he shouldn’t be baptized. Philip had none. He did not need to consult with or get the approval of any church or put the man through any classes. Conversion, then immediate baptism.
In Acts 9:18, Paul was baptized by Ananias after he believed. His baptism was not immediate. He was so stunned from his encounter on the road and there were no believers around. But when Ananias found him and the scales fell from his eyes, they baptized him. Conversion, then almost immediate baptism.
Acts 10:46-48 is another telling story. Peter, without consulting with the Jerusalem church or the other apostles, baptized Cornelius and others when they professed faith and were filled with the Holy Spirit. Here, there was clear and convincing evidence of their salvation, but the principle still applies here. Conversion, then immediate baptism.
Seeing a pattern develop?
Look at Acts 16:14-15, the story of Lydia’s conversion. The Lord opened her heart, she believed and was immediately baptized. In Acts 16:30-33, Paul and Silas led the Philippian Jailer to faith in Christ. Verse 33 says, “he was baptized at once.” Not after the new members class finished. Not when he turned a certain age. Both were converted, then immediately baptized.
The last significant account is Acts 19:3-5. Paul encountered a band of John’s disciples. He explains the fulfillment of the gospel through Jesus and they believe. Verse five tells us, “on hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Conversion, then immediate baptism.
There seems to me to be a clear pattern. In the book of Acts, NOTHING comes between salvation and baptism. If I led you to Christ, we would go and find a pond, creek or river and you would be baptized before the hour was out. That seems to be the clear pattern. It is not a command that we baptize immediately, but it certainly seems to be a pattern.
It is unfortunate that none of these stories involves children, though there are a couple in which households are involved; households that may well have had children. No children were baptized in these stories, but neither is there any prohibition of such. The argument of silence is weak in both directions.
What I Believe and Why I Do What I Do
1) It is clear to me that in the New Testament days, as just demonstrated in the review of the passages in Acts, baptism followed conversion immediately (or as nearly so as practicable). When a believer shared the gospel with an unbeliever and the unbeliever believed, the next thing they did was find some water for a baptism. Granted, we only have eight examples and it could be argued that they do not represent the practice of the church as a whole. But there are eight examples and they are uniform in the pattern. Conversion, followed by an immediate baptism. If this was not the general practice of the early church, one might expect to find instructions in the epistles to countermand the clear implication of this pattern.
2) I see no evidence of any kind of screening process, membership class, or discipleship process that preceded baptism. This does not necessarily invalidate them, but it makes it hard to argue that they are a biblical mandate. Baptism seems to be an initial picture, a public proclamation of salvation in Christ that initiated the process of discipleship and is not the culmination of it.
3) There is little or no evidence of church oversight of the process of baptism in the early church. This is not germane to my topic and runs the risk of diverting the discussion from the subject of children’s baptism. But see no place in which a baptism was put through the mechanism of a local church before it was performed. Philip did not consult the Jerusalem church when he baptized the Samaritans. Peter probably knew that the baptism of Gentiles would create problems among the apostles, but he did not stop to seek consent before he baptized Cornelius. The evidence seems to lead us to an immediate baptism upon profession of faith. I am not against church supervision of the process, but wonder where the biblical support for that idea is.
4) It does not seem to me that new believers were required to prove their faith before baptism in any tangible way. They were baptized on clear profession of faith, not on the proof of that faith. I am sure that the disciples were careful to explain the gospel clearly and exercised reasonable vigilance to see that the confession was not in any obviously false way.
It is always sad when someone gives a profession of faith then turns back from it in later days. I think we try to examine folks so carefully to avoid this. Certainly, we are required to exhibit due diligence in explaining the faith and verifying the understanding of those who confess Christ.
But baptism initiates discipleship, it is not the culmination of it.
5) While there is no example of the baptism of small children, neither is there any prohibition of it. We each have to make a decision based on our understanding of scripture.
Baptism and Children
1) It is my duty to baptize those who give a clear profession of faith in Jesus Christ – regardless of their age. If a child gives a clear and convincing profession of faith in Jesus Christ and understands that salvation and the picture of baptisms, I will baptize them.
I want to see the following things:
• A clear understanding of the gospel. “Jesus is my best friend” is not enough. Sin. Death. Hell. Jesus’ death on the cross. His resurrection. A childlike faith is fine, but even children need to understand these things.
• Genuine conviction of sin. Obviously, children haven’t usually done horrible, wicked things, but they are sinners. They need to understand that they have sinned against God and are under his judgment. They must have a sense of the seriousness of their sin and their need for Christ.
• A realization that Christ came to bring new life; a life in which he is Lord. Children need to understand that it is more than just Jesus coming to live in their hearts and taking them to heaven one day. They are surrendering their lives to Christ as Lord.
• An understanding of the meaning and purpose of baptism. They must realize that baptism is a symbol, a public profession of faith and not a saving event in itself. This is especially important in areas like mine in which certain other denominations hold sway and teach that baptism “washes away our sin.” This needs to be made clear.
2) Our families and our children’s ministries must make these truths absolutely clear. Personally, I think it is best to continually proclaim the gospel and these truths, but to refrain from invitations, especially ones with pressure. Children will often respond to please, and they are susceptible to guilt and pressure. Who would not ask Jesus to be their best friend? We need to teach clearly and let the Spirit of God create the desire and conviction within them. My experience has been that children saturated with the true gospel message will tend to respond at the proper time, young or old. Make the message clear, but don’t make the decision too easy. Even children must count the cost.
I am teachable on this issue. But until someone convinces me biblically that baptizing children is wrong, I will continue doing it. I will baptize a four-year-old if he or she can give me a clear profession of faith and exhibit decent understanding of the meaning of baptism. That would be a rare four-year-old, of course, but I do not see the emphasis being put on the age, but on the profession of faith in Christ.
Does that make me a Paedobaptist? I don’t think so, but now, you make the call.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
There are many people in our churches who have been saved at the age of 6 +/- that are faithful and fruitful, many more are not. Age has not been my compass. What we do after we are saved tells the story. When we present the gospel and someone responds it is only questioned to a point of acceptable evidence of the knowledge of what they are doing and the baptism is to follow. We must be vigilant to care for them, and their parents, to bring these to maturity. If we do not have that in place now, we are lopsided in out Soteriology.
One church that I listen to on the radio has the new converts write out their testimony and read it in the baptistery prior to being baptized. Occasionally, they present their baptisms which takes up an entire service. Some are true confessions of faith; others don’t have the right sound. Something is amiss. That seems to me to be the way the congregation could gravitate to these new believers to help them grow and mature and confirm their salvation if it didn’t come across the right way (It would have to be the right person).
I was one of those who believed I was saved when I walked the isle at 6 years old. In later years I began to think about what faith was all about. Then I compared it to my salvation and nothing fit. One day as I was crossing the room to turn on the AC I realized what it meant to place faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. I knew then that I was not saved. I followed up with my prayer of repentance and confession and was baptized the following Sunday. Believe me, I looked like a Christian, talked like a Christian and served like a Christian when I walked that isle again. I think people were more surprised when I was saved at 25 than the first time.
Dave – I just don’t think we can place a time on when a person is to be baptized. If they confess what they were taught from Scripture and there is no clear evidence “not” to baptize them, then we should proceed to the baptismal pool. God is Sovereign and will not lose one of His flock.
Great information. Thanks
Dave:
I think you are on the right track, although I can respect those who put a minimum age limit as a personal baptism policy. It is never within our power to know who will persevere and who will not. I also agree that what passes for evangelism with children is often frightening. Ask Jesus Into Your Heart is not the Gospel.
Perhaps this is a question for another post, but I’m wondering what your thought are about re-baptism. I think this is another area where we as evangelicals have shown that we don’t take baptism seriously enough. I suspect re-baptisms make up a large portion of our baptism numbers reported to the convention.
Brother David,
Why do anything else?…. Our Lord commands us to baptize! It is clear that the Apostle Paul did not “dilly dally” when it came to identifying with Christ through baptism.
A great many folks have created all kinds of self serving traditions to control this simple identifying act of obedience to Christ.
Keep up the good work..keep it simple to retain the meaning!
Blessings,
Chris
No, it doesn’t make you a paedobaptist because you still want to see some level of belief and understanding by the child himself.
The paedobaptist traditions have an entirely different theology: baptism is the New Testament version of circumcision by which parents bring their children into the covenant. The (usually infant) child typically has no say in the matter.
This brings up a question, though: would you baptize a child who gives a clear and convincing confession but whose parents object? Would you go against the parent’s wishes and baptize anyway? If not, why not?
In my experience, there is not much difference between a SBC baptism and a PCA one. In most cases the SBC candidate has no clue about the facts concerning baptism which is why Bruce above can say: “There are many people in our churches who have been saved at the age of 6 +/- that are faithful and fruitful, many more are not.” As is typical, where orthodoxy is emphasized among Presby churches, those who are baptized as babies have a higher rate of retention than the Baptists who think they are baptizing according to knowledge. The reason Presbys retain more, has to do the catechesis follow-up. In most cases in the SBC the candidate is brought to baptism acknowledging their participation in their own salvation. In the historically orthodox protestant churches, children are brought up understanding that salvation is purely a monergistic work of God where baptism is properly seen as being done in the Spirit, not externally, not as having anything to do with what the individual has done. Baptist tend to emphasize man in the baptism, Presbys, God. Baptists cling to the symbol as almost the magic talisman which brings them in. Presbys accredit God and not the means he provides. Baptists, generally, not only secure the fact that the person is an infant at the time of baptism whether 6 or sixty by not teaching baptism properyly, but often insures that they will never come to the correct understanding of Christ’s work, a requisite of faith, by not following up with sound teaching about God’s work.
In the end, it is no wonder that the SBC has lost the vast majority of all those who have been baptized since 1950 simply to their walking away. Who can blame them. They had no reason to stay.
Bill, rebaptism is a controversial issue, of course.
I see only a few requirements for genuine baptism. The person must have trusted Christ, and have an understanding of baptism – its meaning and purpose.
I would accept anyone who was baptized by an evangelical church, by immersion, after faith in Christ.
I would not accept Oneness or baptismal regeneration baptisms. I would accept Assembly, or bible church, or even one not affiliated with a specific church – as long as it was post-conversion, by immersion, as a symbol of faith.
Patrick,
I would likely not baptize a child whose parents are against it. Perhaps a teenager.
I might try to talk to the parents and tell them what it means. But I generally would observe the parents authority in this.
Thomas,
I don’t think we really have records of baptizing children from the first century, however, when those who were baptized with the baptism of repentance they were adults. I don’t recall baptisms after the resurrection except for one mentioning in I Cor. 1:17. With that, I have to say that baptism would only have symbolic value. When the baptism occurs would not have an effect on the results in a believer’s life nor would the catechism. (Sometimes catechism is just learning, not discipleship. I like and agree with catechism, too.) That would be works of some sort. I must confess that within the SBC churches I have been associated with in the South, they have been more focused on numbers of baptisms than discipleship, membership than morality and buildings than service/witnessing. Our SBC literature is not designed to mature the believer. No one goes from the pew to the Seminary and cuts out a couple of years due to proper or available training within the local church. Our convention uses statistics to guide them much of the time. SBC has declined based upon the numbers they look at. Maybe, the unbelievers simply left. Who knows? It may be a good thing, too.
You know, if every SBC church member believed in tithing the way we claim, and every church was frugal with their money regarding buildings and such, we could pay off the National debt. The Presbys could feed the poor in every nation of the world, too. The thing is, there is just so many true believers and there are more (much more than we think) who are just tagging along. Faithful or not is not the real answer, true believers will be the one’s on God’s right in the judgment. It will be the fruit produced that confirms the true believer. We must inspect ourselves first and, then, often.
I agree with much of what you said, I just don’t put the value of true conversion on the fact that there is a retension due to catechism. SBC does similar based upon numbers, too.
A harsh view of baptists, Thomas.
In fact, it is not my experience. I teach the Bible systematically and expositionally. Over time, that has a powerful effect on children.
My whole point is that baptism is the beginning of the process of discipleship, not the end of it. Catechism (if its biblical) is one way of doing that discipleship.
However, since the paedobaptists ignore the biblical teachings on baptism, I cannot support that system. I know you disagree, but I am baptist because I see this as a clear bible teaching.
I don’t know what gave you such a negative, disdainful and condemning attitude toward Southern Baptists. But in my experience, it is a little skewed. Certainly, in a denomination our size, some of that is true. But there are many godly SBs who disciple faithfully and proclaim clearly.
You might need to expand your sample a little before you paint with such broad brushstrokes in making those pronouncements.
TO ALL,
I appreciate everyone who reads this post and who responds. I try to engage ideas and answer questions – perhaps I do it too much. Before I joined SBC Impact, I was used to no one reading what I wrote and I am thrilled to hear from you. So if you take the time to respond to what write, I want to interact and respond to you.
But I am in Pella, Iowa, at a Family Bible conference as one of the speakers. My time here is limited, as is the internet service. So, my responses to your responses will be limited.
When I catch a moment, I will respond. Even if I’m not able to until the thread has died (I’ll be home Friday night) I still appreciate you taking the time to read, consider, comment, even criticize.
Wow Dave! You finally hit on an issue we disagree on. :>)
I don’t know if you have read my post on this. Maybe it is one of the articles you were referencing. But, just in case not, here it is:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/07/09/semi-infant-baptism-in-baptist-churches/
It seems to me I answer the issues you bring up in my post, as well as in some of the comments on the comment stream.
I am open to being convinced otherwise, though.
I realize this is your post, and I don’t want to hijack it. But, without going back and copying everything I wrote in my post, it would help me in the dialogue if you (and/or others who support your position) could go back and read what I wrote, and respond to the arguments I present there.
Basically (and this is a key point), I would not call child conversions “false conversions,” but I would call them conversions in the process of becoming lifelong conversions. Yes, I believe the age of accountability occurs sometime around the age of puberty.
To the subject of re-baptism. I was one who made a “descision” at the age of 6 years old. I recall the event and the baptism. Since there was no connection with both events originally(conversion and baptism) I requested to be baptized again. I’m glad I did, for conscience sake.
To the subject of parental approval. If I met with the parents and went completely through the plan of salvation and why baptism would be the next step and they refused, I would comply. I would explain to the child that God’s Word expects children to obey their parents and why. Then I would insert that if you still wanted to be baptized after you were older, your parents would probably agree. I would ask the parents in front of the child what age they would feel is best for their child to make his or her own decision. Then I would ask the parents if he/she could continue to come to church and go from there.
David,
I quickly perused the article and I think we are generally on the same page about evangelising children.
I would encourage anyone who reads this to go to David’s link and read it. I think you will find our general approach the same, except that he holds to an age of accountability around the age of 12 or 13 and would wait until then to baptize children.
David, I will interact with that more when I get the time. We may still be able to maintain some small level of fellowship even though you disagree with me on this matter.
It is a good article, and I will try to deal with it when I have a moment.
However, I fully agree with points 1-5. I, obviously, would not agree with point 6.
look forward to a healthy debate, but for now, back to the next session in Pella.
Bruce, I agree.
One note – I was baptized at age 6 and am convinced it was genuine. Perhaps that colors my view.
Really, this time I’m not kidding! I’m off to my conference
Bruce: I don’t want to disqualify your experience because I know it happens. My concern is that we associate salvation so much with some sort of tangible “event”, that we end up with: “I thought I believed back then but I didn’t really, now I really do.” “Wait, I’m still not sure I believed that second time but now I really, really do.” Should this person be rebaptized? How often?
After all, we do not baptize people based upon faith, as David points out, but upon profession of faith. This situation is in part exacerbated by the “Are you sure that you’re sure” tactic so prevalent in evangelical revivalism. We are very, very good at encouraging people to doubt their salvation.
I hope this isn’t taking us too far off topic, but if we are going to baptize young children, and I think David has made a good case for it, then we ought not to be rebaptizing them later on. I can foresee exceptions of course, but they ought to be rare.
Bill,
Agreed. I don’t know if you had a similar experience, but, it’s one of those things that “you had to be there” to know what I meant. When you are not saved and are baptized it has absolutely no meaning. Your obedience to anything God says is totally fruitless and useless. Now, if it is someone else, well, I would want to talk with them in more detail if I was a pastor. Frankly, if they really didn’t convince me that true conversion occured I would ask them to wait up to a year to see what their “new man” was going to do. I would consider taking them on personally to see the reality of the conversion. I believe birds of a feather flock together. There would be a kindred spirit between us and it should show. Once they were mentored and I was convinced of their growth I would re-baptize them. I do not think we can grow to maturity without being obedient after we are saved to the command in this area first.
Dave, thanks for the reply. This is a good thread.
I’m still not sure I understand what you are saying in the post. It seems to me that your entire analysis kind of falls apart if you refuse baptism to a sincerely-converted child based on the parent’s objection.
You point out several times that conversion is immediately followed by baptism in Acts. You say there is little or no evidence of any kind of screening process or church oversight. But what you describe as your practice includes both a screening process and church oversight. It goes like this:
1) Child makes profession of faith.
2) The church (via pastor Dave) decides the profession is clear and convincing.
3) If so, child is baptized unless parents object.
4) If parents object, baptism is delayed until they change their minds or child reaches adulthood.
Unless you baptize everyone who claims to have have converted, it seems step 2 is sort of unavoidable for both children and adults, yes?
As for parental authority, think about Luke 14:26. Will someone who truly wants to be a disciple let their parents stand in the way? And how does allowing parents to prevent/delay the baptism of a new Christian compare with Peter’s decision to baptize Cornelius immediately, despite the risk of alienating people?
I don’t see how you can refuse baptism to any child who asks for it, whether the parents agree or not, and still be consistent with the principles you set forth. Am I missing something?
Bruce: What about the reverse situation? Under what circumstances would you counsel someone that they didn’t really need to be baptized again? If the person was either deceptive or completely clueless when they first professed, then perhaps, but especially with young children one assumes that their profession was as sincere and well reasoned as they are able.
Patrick,
I’m not sure how this fits into my system. There seem to be conflicting lines of authority here – the authority to follow Christ and the authority of the parents.
But legally, in America, you are on very shaky ground to do something like this outside the parents authority.
It may be inconsistent based on my view. But I always talk to the parents before baptizing a child.
You have, perhaps, uncovered an inconsistency or conundrum here in my view.
Back to camp!
Bill,
My first comments to a person would be to inform them what I believe about baptism. I believe it is symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (although John’s baptism of repentance would seem to wash the sin away since Jesus had not died and rose again). I also believe that it has no real meaning without the true change that comes from being born again. There would be a new man living within the framework of the person’s heart now; regeneration if you will. With that in place and understood I would suggest that they be baptized, not re-baptized. It’s like being married to an unbeliever the first time. Do you go through the vows again if you divorce and remarry? (May not be the best example.) With the newly regenerated person there would have to be an act of obedience to the command to be baptized. If they felt that this was unnecessary I would accept it and, as a Baptist, I would allow church membership without question. I would do this under the counsel of the elders or whoever was set-up to help make the decisions with the pastor.
There is something that changes within the person upon true salvation. Baptism is the true “public profession of our faith” as I understand it. I think there would be a time or place or example that would not fit this ideal, however, I believe the individual must bear the burden if he or she creates the controversy after the fact. There would be a time and place to say enough is enough, too.
One thing for sure, I’m glad that God did call me and save me. My conscience is clear because I desired to be baptized afterward. I encourage each of you to consider this side of the argument so no one is walking around wondering if they should have gone ahead and been baptized. That uncertainty is enough to place limits on the confidence needed by some to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hesitation often causes one to fall short of a goal.
But, according to my view, Patrick’s question presents no problem at all. This is because I advocate postponing baptism until the point an individual is able to make “autonomous moral decisions.” If a child is still basically subject to their parents, they are also dependent on their parents in relation to their moral decision-making.
In our society, teenage years are a bit ambiguous in this regard. But, in Jewish society, those who have been through their bar mitzvah are regarded as accountable to the law, and, as I understand it, not subject to the preferences of their parents in questions like this.
I don’t have any real statistics. But I imagine that 98% or more of child baptisms in the SBC are of children from Christian homes in which their parents are supportive of their baptism, and (taking a stab at it) more than 90% from homes in which their parents in one way or another encouraged their children to consider being baptized.
Maybe some may not see it; but I see a real link here with the Presbyterian-Reformed view in which it is the parents duty to help incorporate their children into the Covenant Community, even though their actual independent conversion may come at a later date.
If we had young children bound and determined to be baptized, even though their parents were not supportive, we would be dealing with something else. But, for some reason, very, very rarely do we see this occur. Hmmm…
Bill,
Thank you for making me think. Your questions make me search out my belief in this area. It has been a while since I have worked through something like this. I didn’t know there were other views on this. Really!
I guess, David, that I am not convinced that independent moral thought – the so-called age of accountability has biblical support. When I get home, I’m going to go back through your article a little more carefully.
If I, as a six-year-old child, made a genuine commitment to Christ, I was a moral agent. i do not rememer being pressured into baptism, but it was kind of expected.
Is it possible for a child to truly trust Christ?
If it is, then on what basis would we deny baptism till a certain age?
If he has truly trusted Christ, ought he not to follow Christ in baptism?
I didn’t word that right (exhaustion, I guess). “that setting a date at which independent moral thought begins – the so-called age of accountability…”
maybe that is less confusing
David,
It seems that the age of accountability is connected to puberty which is connected to our flesh changing. It awakens us to a new world. Being born again awakens us to a new kingdom. It seems that there is a difference between the two.
I remember our pastor saying, “I walked through the muck and mire of this world, I was a reject among men, I did everything a person could possibly do until I was gloriously saved at the age of 6.” Of course, he was kidding. However, he began a walk with the Lord early in life. I could not relate to that because I never walked that path.
Dave,
I hope this doesn’t come across as overly argumentative.
But, are you saying you don’t believe at all in an age of accountability?
Is there not a time when a small child passes from not being able to understand salvation (at least, intellectually) and explain baptism (at least intellectually) to a time they are able to understand and explain. That seems to be what I hear you, and others who support child baptism, to say— “They must be ready, if they are able to understand and explain it.” If such is the case, then, it seems you are already conceding that there is an age of accountability— just that, for you (if I understand you correctly) the age of accountability has more to do with intellectual understanding and ability to explain, and not so much with independent moral decision-making.
If this is not so, then why not baptize 4-year-olds, and 3-year-olds, and 2-year-olds, and …?
Bruce,
I would say that the age of accountability also has to do with our brain changing (See the link to Piaget and Kohlberg in the post I linked to in my first comment on this post). Yes, the new birth is a spiritual, not a physical birth. But, it does seem to me that God deals with us as whole persons, not as split personalities. I suppose, if you pressed me, I would assent to the idea of “the ghost in the machine” (e.g. we have spiritual existence independent of our physical existence). But, that spiritual existence (as I understand it) comes into being at the same time our physical existence comes into being. And, while we are still living on this earth, our spirit is “lodged” (I’m not sure it that’s the best way to say it, but that’s the word that comes to mind) inside our brain. One day, our spirits will no longer be confined, either to our bodies or our brains. But, for now, in some important ways, they still are.
Perhaps this is getting a little too metaphysical. But, so far, that is the explanation of these questions that make the most sense to me.
It is hard to argue with personal testimonies. If your pastor was radically saved at age 6, praise God! As I argue on the post I linked to, I believe we should encourage young children to repent of their sin, ask God to forgive their sins, and trust in God for their salvation. However, I would postpone baptism until puberty, and would avoid assuring a child of their eternal security, on the basis of a childhood experience.
I am still open to being convinced, though. I freely admit that this is a thorny issue.
David,
I am most agreeable with you on this. Even though the flesh will never inhabit God’s kingdom and I could question it being part of the process here. To me, the flesh would be used like weights in the resistance exercise program to strengthen us. The baptism is best appreciated and understood once we have transitioned toward, or into, adulthood. Thank you.
“Even though the flesh will never inhabit God’s kingdom…”
Bruce, you may want to rephrase this. The flesh already inhabits God’s kingdom. We know this Christ became flesh and bodily ascended to heaven following the Resurrection.
David, be as argumentative with me as you want. I find it invigorating.
I am not sure about anything related to the age of accountability.
But what I was saying above is that I don’t know about a specific age. It seems to me that the age of accountability would be the age a child can understand and respond to gospel truths.
In my experience, that is well before 12 for most children with whom I have had interaction.
Again, I will go a more detailed interaction with your post when I get home tomorrow, hopefully.
Good point, Patrick. I do not think there is a true connection of the Spirit and “earthly” flesh. Either the flesh is leading or the Spirit is leading. The only thing people see is my flesh when either is in charge. I understand that our flesh, in its form now, cannot inherit eternal life due to the fall. Christ’s body was made like ours, yet, never in a fallen state and was transformed at His resurrection. My flesh will have to be transformed like Christ’s body was in order to become complete for our new and future home. I would think that our new “flesh” will not have the same drives our present flesh has nor the original flesh had. Maybe my understanding of “flesh” was not explained well enough. As I live now I do not see my flesh producing or being connected in any way to spiritual things. It can only be obedient when the Spirit is in control.
Romans 7:25 – I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
I Cor 15:50 – Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Galatians 5:16, 17 – [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
You can query “flesh” and find more references. Romans 7 & 8 have many more that relate.
The flesh I was referring to was the flesh we now occupy. I think of it as a shell I reside in until it is renovated and made for another place.
Hope that has some clarity. I do appreciate your comment more than you think.
David – I hope that sheds some light about what I meant, as well.
Dave,
I look forward to your more detailed interaction.
From what I read in your last comment, I think our differences on this issue root in different understandings of the terms “understand” and “respond to.” I would say there are different levels of “understanding” and “response.” It is not quite so black and white. And, a big part of it has to do with autonomous moral decision-making. It was when I first heard about the studies of Piaget and Kohlberg in a college Intro to Psychology class that I first got to thinking about this. It would be good to read up on that a little bit, if you really want to understand where I am coming from.
Bruce,
Your explanation makes sense to me. Thanks.
I had a textbook in seminary that was one of the most thought-provoking I have ever read on the subject “Children and Conversion,” ed. Clifford Ingle (Broadman, 1970) — unfortunately it is now well out of print, but still an excellent resource. In that book Bill Hendricks wrote an essay entitled “The Age of Accountability” (reprinted in his book “A Theology for Children”) that helped me ask some pertinent questions and set a few foundational doctrines in place on the subject.
1. What are the requirements for biblical faith? He states, “It is impossible to have saving faith in the fullest sense without certain minimal beliefs and awareness of those definitive acts which brought Christianity into being. Faith implies confidence in the object of faith. For Christians this means trusting God. Faith includes: the depth-level giving of oneself to God — the heart; the full willingness to pattern one’s life according to the will of God — the hands; and a knowledge of who God is, what he has done for us, and what he requires of us – the head.”
2. What is the gospel people must believe? He delineates the kerygma, the bare essence of the gospel as repeated numerous times in Acts (1:14-36; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:30-32; 10:36-43) which contains the gospel “in embryo” of what the remainder of the NT clarifies. (1) Jesus came from God, the God of Israel, who made the heaven and earth. (2) Men killed Christ, so in some sense, all are responsible for His death. (3) Yet, Christ’s death was according to God’s plan — acting through Christ’s death to bring man to himself. (4) Christ was raised — conquering man’s last enemy, death. (5) God through Christ has sent the Holy Spirit to bear witness to what God in Christ has done for sinful humanity. Hendricks then states, “Without these facts the Christian faith is unintelligible…. This is the heart of the Christian gospel. Men — all men — children as well, must have some awareness as to what this basic Christian message means to man.”
3. Besides hearing and affirming these facts, what must people do? They must have faith — faith in the God who brought these things to pass. This faith in God is accompanied by despair of oneself and all other created things — evidenced by repentance. This involves sorrow for sin, for having trusted oneself, for having rejected God as alone worthy of our confidence, and for having sought all things for our own gain and desires.
4. Are there perhaps two ways of relating to God, one for children and one for adults? No. “The matter returns again to what God requires. He requires the proclamation of the gospel and its acceptance by man, by any man whom he enables to trust. The requirement is not less for children; there is only one essential gospel…. It may well be asked if a life kind of commitment to God can be made by children who are not accustomed to making significant and lasting decisions of any sort…. If the minimal requirements of faith are the basic demands of the gospel, are we insuring that those who express faith in Christ Jesus are aware of those requirements? In some way any regenerate person must be able to express and to relate them in a meaningful way…. We must ask if our concern for children will permit us to have two ways of salvation, one for adults and one for children. Is it not possible we will price salvation so cheap that it will neither change our children nor sustain them through the troubled days of adolescence?”
Hendricks then gives these “tentative guidelines.”
(1) “We must place more emphasis on a serious view of accountability than on the concept of age. In the ight of the demands of biblical faith we must present one gospel as simply as possible. However, we must not reduce the full biblical expression of what is needed in slavation. It is highly doubtful that many children below the age of nine can express or have experienced despair for sin as radical separation from God. One cannote be ‘saved’ until he is aware he is ‘lost.’
(2) “It is a mistake to set an arbitrary age for conversion. It is likewise a mistake to ignore the capacity of given age levels.” Children do mature at different ages according to individual ability and personal background. God’s Spirit works with the individual in conversion — thus, setting an arbitrary age of accountability is difficult. At the same time, studies of age groups and their experiences show that “abstract concepts cannot be grasped before a certain level of understanding is attained. It is also one of God’s ways with man that he does not remove a person from his circumstances and ability in his work of grace. Both age and accountability must be considered.”
The entire essay is well worth reading.
Kevin,
The book sounds very interesting. I notice that Hendricks mentions a certain degree of abstract reasoning capability as a matter related to accountability. I also notice that the book was written in 1970, which leads me to wonder if any of the contributors were aware of the studies of Kohlberg, and subsequent investigators, on related issues. Personally, I think the distinction between “abstract reasoning” and “independent moral decision-making” to be crucial. Perhaps there is some relation between the two. I have not researched this nearly as much as I would like to.
However, it is entirely possible for me to conceive of a child having a high degree of “abstract reasoning” capability, without yet having a corresponding degree of “independent moral decision-making” capability.
And, I think this is key in regard to this entire question.
David,
Hendricks’ book “A Theology for Children” (Broadman, 1980) relies pretty heavily upon the work of Piaget, but I found no references to Kohlberg or Moral Developmetn theory. Perhaps Kohlberg was too new or Hendricks was simply unfamiliar with it.
I believe Kohlberg added a necessary part to the puzzle with his stages of moral development. His insight that moral development can be accelerated through education is a phenomenon that I see in the lives of so many children raised in devoutly Christian contexts, and a challenge for Christian leaders to spur our people further up the ethical scale. Far too many Christians live by rules rather than by principles.
James Fowler, “Stages of Faith” (Harper & Row, 1981), built from Kohlberg and Piaget to describe the stages of faith development – going beyond even Kohlberg. Fowler states that children ages 7-11 “work hard at sorting out the real from the make believe.” Faith at this stage is defined as “reliance on stories, rules and implicit values in the family’s community of meanings.” Known as a “conformist stage,” the person is tuned to the expectations of significant others. “The locus of authority is in others.”
Fowler states that persons ages 12-18, “systems of ideas begin to form as adolescents restructure and reorganize their world.” The person begins to synthesize one’s own meaning and “the locus of authority shifts from external to internal” in which one gains a personal meaning to life. To me, this describes the stage or independent moral reasoning, or “age of accountability,” when a person makes moral judgments of their own volition.
Kevin,
These are some extremely interesting quotes. I am definitely going to have to check out these books. From what I can tell, Fowler’s book seems to confirm everything I am saying here. Do you have any idea whether Fowler himself is a believer?
Another conundrum: How do we reconcile the “age of accountability” with “eternal security?” The very concept suggests that humans have salvation and then lose it.
1) At birth, children are without sin and therefore saved. A child will go to heaven if he dies at that moment.
2) At some point, the child becomes capable of moral reasoning and commits sin. He is no longer saved and will got to hell if he dies.
3) At some later point (we hope and pray) the child understands the Gospel, accepts Christ and is heaven-bound once again.
So people go from saved to unsaved and back to saved again, or so it seems. I don’t see how this fits with the rest of what we see in Scripture about salvation. In fact, I don’t see the age of accountability in Scripture at all. Where are you all getting this idea?
David,
This is going to be a tough issue to argue biblically.
We both adhere to the authority of scripture and use it to settle discussions, which you affirm in the third paragraph of the post you linked to. Yet, as to the “age of accountability” you admit that the Bible does not speak directly. I will also admit that there is no direct biblical evidence concerning child baptism in the New Testament. Your proofs for your position are a historical argument, the argument from the later Jewish practice of Bar Mitzvah, the Paedobaptist practice of confirmation, Piaget and Kohlberg’s research on the human brain and Flavil Yeakley’s study. It will be hard to decide issues like this with scripture, won’t it?
The historical argument is strong, but not decisive, as you admit. I don’t really have the knowledge of historical Baptist practice to defend my view against this argument. If what you say is right (or, more accurately, what Hammett says), then my view is certainly out of the mainstream of Baptist history. But, as you admit, that is not an absolute argument.
You said, “So, though the Bible never directly states that baptism must be administered as soon after an individual comes to faith in Christ as possible, the examples given in the New Testament provide a practically unanimous testimony to this practice.” Of course, that is the chief argument I advance. In eight examples, the book of Acts is unanimous in its pattern. Baptism immediately follows conversion.
The rest of the arguments you give – well-stated and convincing – seem to be basically saying that it is not to the age of 12 (or so) that a child has the ability to make a genuine independent, moral decision. You present a compelling case.
Here is the crux of my argument: Baptism immediately follows conversion in every New Testament example. It is the beginning of the process of discipleship. Since there is no biblical instruction in this matter that would lead us to vary from this clear pattern, I baptize those who clearly confess faith – at whatever age.
I would point out a couple of scriptures that while, again, not definitive, would tend to argue against a set age limit on baptisms. I admit they are not the strongest biblical arguments, but on this subject, we have both admitted that the biblical evidence may not be absolute. I’m going to argue my point from these, even though I know it is hardly the surest foundation.
Matthew 18:3-5 says, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (See also Mark 10:14)
It does not say that children need to become adults, but that adults need to become like children. It also (perhaps the strongest evidence we have here) that these “little ones” believe in him. Jesus, here, indicates that there are little ones who genuinely believe in him.
Luke 9:47-48 adds another perspective. “But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side and said to them, ‘Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.’”
Luke 18:15-17 presents another story from Jesus. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’”
The disciples stopped people from bringing children to Jesus. He told them to let the children come (no, I’m not arguing that he’s talking about baptism) and then says that the kingdom belongs to children like these.
Do these settle the issue? No. But they do give some indication that Jesus saw the reality of the faith of small children. What age? I’m not sure. But, from what little I know about the words used here, it seems unlikely that the words apply to a child of 12.
Some summary statements:
1) I would agree with you that there is a problem with young children and their baptisms. I would disagree that the problem is that we baptize children at all. I would say it is the failure of churches to adequately evangelize children (weak “Jesus wants to be your friend” gospel presentations), and the tendency of some to put pressure (intentionally or unintentionally) on children.
2) I would agree that churches are often foolish (or worse) in the way we baptize children. Baptism is our denomination’s key statistic. I would hope it would never be true, but do some baptize small children without adequately instructing them or reviewing their understanding, so that they can build their baptismal statistics? I would guess its so.
3) I do not deny the reality of the age of accountability. It can also not be proven from scripture, one way or another.
4) As to your 6 suggestions at the end of your article, I would make the following observations.
Point 1 – I would only add “Christian parents and churches”
Point 2 &3 – full agreement.
Point 4 – I fully agree. In fact, I think this is the most important issue. Whatever happens should come from the child, not from the parents, an evangelist, or a church. It should flow from within, from the work of God’s Spirit within the child. Parents and churches need to let God work.
My disagreement is that, if that has happened, and when it happens, I baptize.
Point 5 – the consistent teaching and training from God’s word is the most important thing for families and churches. Immerse kids first in the word of God. Then, when the Spirit works, immerse them in water.
Point 6 – I am still of the belief that children, when they come to Christ, should publicly testify to their faith in baptism.
Look forward to your response.
David,
I accidentally left this both on your post and here. Sorry.
Brother Kevin,
Good stuff. However, almost all research done on developmental psychology was done in a western context. Dwairy (a Palestinian trained in Western Psychology who practices in Nazareth) has written extensively on this topic. A great primer for how psychology differs among collectivist societies (such as Arabs/Muslims) is Counseling and Psychotherapy with Arabs and Muslims. A great work that helps us to modify developmental theories for collectivist societies… makes me wonder what implications this would have in the discussion of the “age of accountability.”
Apologies for butting in here. But it is always so stimulating for me to think outside of Western society and philosophy!
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Dave,
Thanks for your thorough response. Just a few observations for now…
I find it interesting that the very passages you refer to bolster your position (Matthew 18:3-5; Mark 10:14; Luke 9:47-48; and Luke 18:15-17) are the same ones often cited by paedo-baptists in support of their position. How would you respond to a paedo-baptist who claims you are being inconsistent here?
I think it is true that children naturally believe and trust in Jesus. Especially if they grow up in an environment that nurtures this belief. Yet (to respond somewhat to Patrick again), there comes a time, usually around puberty, when a child begins to express his/her independence in ways they have not done so before. Faith, as I understand it, is a voluntary act of placing our trust (or dependence) in Jesus — the opposite of independence. Repentance, which I regard to be the other side of the coin of faith, is turning from our attitude of independence to one of dependence on God. However, a child who has not yet reached puberty has not reached a stage where his/her moral independence has come full bloom. Thus, it is hard to truly turn from their independence. They are still dependent, to a large extent, on the moral guidance of others (in most cases, their parents). Children may well believe in Jesus, and many, no doubt do. But, I see this “faith response” more as an act of compliance that is tied in with their dependence on their parents (or other significant authority figure) than as a turning from their independence to trust or dependence on Jesus.
It sounds like the book Kevin mentioned by James Fowler probably develops this idea more fully.
Once again, if you allow 8 and 9-year-olds to be baptized, I don’t see why you should not also allow 3 and 4-year-olds, or even 2-year-olds. If they are able to say they are sorry for doing wrong, that they believe in Jesus, and that He died on the cross for their sins, why not? I don’t think the degree of eloquence with which one is able to explain the plan of salvation has anything to do with it. I do think, however, that the state of one’s heart has everything to do with it. And little children naturally have hearts that are open to God. But, they still have not known the depths of their own moral depravity, and what it means to choose between depending on oneself and between depending on God, in order to truly repent.
FTME,
Yes, cross-cultural dynamics do indeed throw a wrench into this whole discussion. Have you read Dwairy’s book? How do you think his/her ideas would influence how we approach this question with people from Arab and Muslim backgrounds?
I think that another interesting study would be group conversion movements and individual conversion, and how cultural dynamics influence each. To what degree, for instance, must our faith in Jesus be personal and individual? Does the faith of our family, clan, or people group count for anything before God?
David,
In answer to your question, I would make the obvious distinction. I am talking about children who come to Christ, not those carried in diapers by their parents.
I don’t think there is quite the slippery slope issue you are suggesting here. It is not that hard to distinguish between an 8 or 9 year old or a two or three year old.
If you instruct them carefully in the gospel and let the Holy Spirit work on them (without our inducements or pressures), the difference becomes clear.
I do think I might try to track down some of the resources that you and Kevin have mentioned and study the issue a little more.
One more thing I thought of as I reread your response.
You said, “if they are able to say they are sorry for doing wrong, that they believe in Jesus, and that He died on the cross for their sins, why not?”
That is one of my key issues. I think one thing we should look for with children is a sense of conviction and a realization of their sin. Its not enough to say, “Yes, I did some sins.” We need to wait to see a sense of conviction and repentance.
I am not advocating baptizing every child who says, “Yes, Jesus died for my sins.” We need to be careful with children to make sure they understand.
Dave,
Fair enough. By the way, I came across the studies of Flavil Yeakley in a Church Growth Seminar taught by Ebbie Smith at Southwestern Seminary. I have since tried to track down that particular study, and haven’t been able to yet. If any one has any information on it, I would appreciate it. It was very interesting.
Dave,
I just read your comment #46. I also think that conviction of sin and repentance are key.
Thinking back on my own childhood, there were various times when I made decisions for Christ, including an initial profession of faith, a decision to be baptized, and various “re-dedications” — all before age 12. Shortly after coming to adolescence, as so many do, I had my “backsliding years,” before coming back, and making another “re-dedication” around age 15.
I also realize there are some who make childhood professions of faith and claim to have never gone through the adolescent “backsliding” syndrome.
For me, though, when I made my adolescent “re-dedication,” it had a different feel to it than my previous decisions. It was as if, for the first time, I was really truly choosing between two potentional paths for my life that were clearly marked out before me.
Then again, though, perhaps I am reading too much of my own experience into that of others.
My experience is similar in many ways. I was saved (and baptized) at age 6. During my high school years, I evidenced little passion for Christ. I was not a “bad” kid, just not active in my faith. I sensed conviction, and at times the presence of God. There just was no commitment.
Just after high school, I recommitted my life to Christ.
Many child converts like myself have a second experience of commitment. That did not, to me, invalidate my childhood experience, it confirmed it (and yes, I understand the irony of the word “confirmed).
Dave & Dave,
I had a similar experience (what is it with age 6–something to do with the “number of man”
. I believed at age 6 and entered into my own backsliding stage. I sought to be the “good church boy.” I wasn’t trying to earn my salvation, but favor, from God. Around age 13 I rededicated my life to God and really began growing in my faith through accountability and fellowship with a friend of mine.
I think that rededication is important and will be life-altering if you’ve fallen off the course. And the changes from child to adult are great and can have lasting effects on our lives, but I think it is risky to say that is where the real salvation takes place. Perhaps it would be better to say that is the place where you can more easily separate the wheat from the chaff. Where the fruit becomes more evident. Maybe that’s the direction we should take this.
Either way, I think it is a good idea to take periodic breaks and look at our lives and redidicate them to God again, because we all know how easy it can be to get off track. Why should we only rededicate our lives to God once when we’re teenagers, unless we viewed our conversion experience as some sort of pseudo-converion and the rededication as locking our salvation in place.
I know this thread is nearly dead, but I would love to poll those of us who were “saved” at an early age. How many of us had another rededication experience? How many think they were genuinely saved at the early age? How many think that the earlier experience was a step in the process, perhaps, but not really a true salvation experience?
To me, it would be an interesting survey.
Dave,
I think I would hesitate to categorize my pre-adolescent experiences as “not genuine” or “not true.” I would say they were just not mature or complete. But, then again, my present experience is not yet as mature or complete as I trust it will one day be.
I have trouble with the idea of “rededication.” Rather, the Bible presents the idea of “repentance” — repentance for salvation or repentance from backsliding. Too many times I hear people state things like, “First Jesus became my Savior, then I rededicated my life and He became my Lord” — as if that is biblically possible. The Bible says, “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord . . . then you will be saved” (Rom 10:9; cf. Acts 16:31). Otherwise, we are letting our personal experience redefine the scripture.
Many children “believe” on Jesus at an early age (and are baptized), only then later in their adolescent years “rededicate” themselves to His Lordship (this is my testimony, Dave). Could it be that at this later time these people are actually understanding the implications of the gospel, what Jesus truly requires to be His disciple, truly repent of the gravity of their sin, and follow Him whatever the cost? Jesus said, “Go make disciples and baptize them” (Matt 28:19). Not every one who “believes” is unto salvation (John 8:31-47). When has someone truly counted the cost to follow Him unto salvation?
Kevin,
I believe strongly in the Lordship of Jesus Christ as you have stated. It would agree that rededication is really repentance from sin, especially the failure to yield to Christ as Lord.
I have struggled at times to put all of this in perspective. I did not live under the Lordship of Christ from age 6 to 17. But I knew I had a Lord and knew where my life needed to head.
I believe that I was saved. Then, at age 17, I repented of my waywardness and surrendered to the Lordship of Christ.
I remember hearing a preacher named Adrian Rogers talking about how the Christian life is not so much about commitment (that emphasizes our work) but yieldedness (emphasizing the Lordship of Christ).
Dave,
I walked an isle at 6 yrs old and, then, was saved at 25 yrs old. There was a clear change. I thirsted for the word and it has never left me. There has never been a doubt since and I am 54 yrs old.
I think you will find different answers from different people, Dave. I do not doubt that I was saved when I was 6, but there will probably be many with similar circumstances who would believe they weren’t saved. I think the outside influence of parents and other authority figures should be taken into account. I realize that I was influenced by my parents in coming to Christ, but I remember that it was the message, not the messenger, that was working in my decision.
I became a Chrisian in my home after my father presented the gospel to me. I didn’t have any kind of pressure (that I can remember), since my dad has always been opposed to those approaches (he went to a church that was reporting high numbers of decisions for Christ and found out their witnessing tool was, “How many of you want to go to hell and be separated from your friends and family forever? Okay then, if you want to go to heaven, pray this prayer.”
Though I’m sure I was presented with the gospel before that time, that was the first time I remember hearing the entirety of it and being presented with a choice to make. Recognizing the immaturity of children and their inability to grow without help, I think that it is vital that children who profess their faith in Christ recieve great care and attention during their adolecent years to help them follow on the good path.
Taking into account the fact that many children will easily cave in to the pressure to pray a prayer or say they believe something, many people will fall away because they really didn’t believe it. Others will fall away and return, really believing in Christ for the first time sometime later. Later on down the road I questioned my salvation, but, strangely, I didn’t doubt whether I was saved when I made my decision, but rather whether I had lost my salvation because of my sinful actions. I was dealing with Arminianism v. Calvinism on “Once Saved-Always Saved.” I’ve never really doubted the genuineness of my conversion experience.
Brother David R,
I am finishing up Dwairy’s book now and still working through the concepts and trying to grasp them… no opinions formed yet. But, WOW! It would take at least three full posts just to start the discussion of the questions you raised ;^)
And I do agree that group/family conversions is one of the major issues westerners deal with when working within more group-oriented societies. It was/is a major adjustment for me.
Apologies for the brief response – I will be a bit busy for the next couple of weeks.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East