Children and Church

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
...To me there is a principle involved here that extends beyond the literal event, much like Paul's quoting of the law about muzzling the ox as pertaining to a minister's right to receive maintenance,...
He said suffer the little children, and to me "suffer" means to be patient, to give place to, and to give the benefit of the doubt to little children...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the explanation. There is a lot there that I don't claim to understand, but I wanted to be sure I understood from where you are coming. Perhaps a little mention of something I use in interpreting the Bible would help you understand from where I am coming. If "suffer the little children" was meant in the way you see it, I would expect to find the PRACTICE of that principle in the early church. I believe the New Testament church is the ideal. This is not to say they were perfect or made no mistakes. But this evolves from my understanding that the apostles spoke and taught authoritatively, and that therefore the New Testament practice is an authoritative example unless clearly shown by the text to be wrong (such as Peter's act in eating/not eating with Gentiles). The apostles and early church did not put this "suffer the little children" into practice as some kind child evangelism. Also, I use practice to help interpret statements. For example, Paul said in one place he was "made all things to all men." This could be, and has been, interpreted to mean that Paul would do anything to get people saved - "the end justifies the means". But, truth is, examination of the historical record of Paul's ministry proves he did not act in such a manner. This may be drawn out and not explained well. But I just don't see any evidence in the NT that the church understood Jesus' statement in such a manner as your interpretation requires.

For the meaning of suffer, I would say "allow".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...because here you do not say that children are incapable of exercising faith, (nowhere did you say that, but I hear many Baptists say that) but they are incapable of providing "fruits meet for repentance." And that is a valid argument, and one I would use if I was arguing your side. Maintaining the integrity of the ordinance is certainly our duty as stewards of the mysteries of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, you are correct; I did not say that, although I would say that I have no evidence that children can exercise faith. But you are very observant in that I have not framed the argument based on the fact that they cannot be saved or exercise faith, but based on their inability to provide fruits. Because I do not believe faith is intellectual assent to the facts of the gospel, I feel the weight of your argument. I am also curbed by my belief in the spiritual nature of salvation and that to some extent regeneration is "beneath the conscious" (but I do not exclude the mind, and believe that our experience is understood both by "feeling" in the heart and intellectually). I do not wish to give any impression that intellectual assent is faith, and I am loathe to "judge" the HEART of anyone. BUT I would add that in my experience in the cases of young children THEY seem to be agreeing with facts they have been told, rather than exercising faith.

To Jamal:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I do believe they did have outreach to young children even though the bible does not explicitly cite an example.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I personally have a problem developing "ministries" outside of command, precept, or example. I don't see any of these in my study of the case of young children.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is a lot of difference. Whether parents parrot the answers of a 3 or 4 year old is a subjective conclusion. Only the parents and the children really know that answers. As unfair as it sounds, 3 and 4 year olds who profess God simply because their parents told them to do it can get baptized while infants cannot because the 3 and 4 year-olds speak for themselves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am willing to admit that it may be a subjective conclusion that they ARE parroting. But you would also have to admit that it is a subjective conclusion that they ARE NOT parroting. So in the absence of New Testament example (practice), I must stick with my subjective conclusion rather than that of you and Aaron.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I did not know this was trend. Ministers have baptized very young children in my town's churches for generations. A young child's decision to get baptized could be analogous to a young child's decision to start learning how to cook or how to play the piano. When you start training a child at a very young age, it oftentimes results in a more disciplined adult.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One study that I can reference easily is from the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, Volume 3, p. 1585. "A third important development (in context this development is concerning baptism from 1955-1970, the time from Volumes 1 & 2 until Volume 3; rlv) is the problem of the baptism of young children...They (the SBC) find themselves coming closer and closer to infant baptism. In 1969, Southern Baptists baptized 1422 children under six years of age, 35,168 were aged 6 to 8, and 136,705 were 9 to 12. These three groups made up almost half of the total baptisms for that year...The main problem is that Southern Baptists have no theology of childhood. The relation of the child to the church has not been thought through..." Realize this only refers to the SBC particularly, but they are the largest group of Baptists in the United States. Experience tells me the same is true of some other groups (ABA, BMAA, BBFI, etc.), but extension should not be made that this is true of all Baptists in the US. Finally, your analogy between the early profession and early learning seems to bring faith and salvation back into the realm of the intellect.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

Here is a online article by David Merck (a pastor of Reformed Baptist Church in Grand Rapids, MI) on the subject Children and Church Membership. I thought you all might like to read it. There are some brief references to the trend of younger baptisms, though Merck does not deal much in the historical. The article does not deal with the question of salvation of young children, but rather with baptism and church membership. This is a must read for those interested in this subject, whether or not you agree with Merck. Other than dealing with the subject of infants and baptism, I have not found a great deal written by Baptists on the subject of children. Merck and his church take the position that church membership is a adult decision. The opposing positions seem to be full church membership for children, and limited church membership for children. Happy reading.

This direct link does not seem to work. If you cannot reach the article by the above link, try the following: Go to www.reformedreader.org , then click on "Reformed Baptist Sermons". Go to the bottom of that page and click on "Sermon Index". On that page scroll down to Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI, and find David Merck's name. Under his name you will find a sermon entitled "Children and Church Membership". It is the one to which I refer above. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

I think this link will work this time.

Children and Church Membership

And here is one other article I found.

Children in Church

with a quote from it: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The last 100 years or so has seen a considerable change in emphasis from adult to children's work in the church. There are many organizations devoted exclusively to the evangelisation of children, and in many evangelical churches there is a disproportionate amount of time and energy given to children's work.

Why is this?

Some have maintained that the age at which people are being converted has dropped, so we must go where God is working. This is questionable, and I suspect that the main reason for this thinking is that it is easier to get "results" with children. It is easier to extract a profession of faith from a child than from an adult, though even with children that is becoming more difficult in these days. I fear though that one reason for the shift is the failure to recognize the barren state of the church in general, and rather than cry out to God to have mercy on us and visit us in our sin and weakness, we have simply chosen to work in an area where more results can be seen, and therefore we do not appear quite so impotent.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Should there not be a divide between Calvinists (or Reformed, if you prefer) and other Baptists on this question? Ironically, Arminians should hold a stricter view than their Calvinist brethren: If conversion is the result of "asking Jesus into your heart," then the church must inquire closely into the decision. On the other hand, if the Holy Spirit is drawing a person to Christ, then age should be irrevelant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>rsr, this is interesting and somewhat "illogical", in my experience. Where I am familiar with very young children being baptized it is among more "Arminian" churches. The more "Calvinistic" churches, in my experience, have people joining when much older. My explanation of this would be that the more "Calvinistic" churches are willing to wait for the Spirit to work, while the more "Arminian" churches think they must do something lest these young children die and go to hell. I would not say this is universal, just what I have seen in my lifetime and where I've been. (Another point in this whole matter is that some Arminians hold to a general rather than total depravity. If their point is true, there is no need to evangelize these young ones)