Teaching
Children
Children's evangelism
Consider
some of the many questions raised.
Are
little ones lost?
Pastor
Willie Mullan and Harry Ironside apparently were among those who held
that there is a difference between "seek and save" and "save"?
Luke
19:10. Among sinners Jesus used "seek and save."
Matt.
18:11. Among disciples Jesus used only "save".
Jesus used
an illustration in Matthew 18 to explain what He meant. He talks about
a sheep "gone astray .... seeking .... if he finds it." The
sheep had to be sought. Note that He used exactly the same illustration
in Luke 15 and there he was talking to tax collectors and sinners.
According
to Matt. 18:14, it is possible for little ones to perish. If children
need to be regenerated, they can only be born again on the same ground
as an adult is regenerated. If we say a child is safe and saved because
it is "innocent", then we deny the grace of God. God saves
by His free and sovereign grace - there is nothing man can do to merit
salvation. But if God saves children because they are "innocent",
then the cause of their salvation is not in God but in the child who
must be saved because of "innocence". A child can only be
saved just as anyone else is saved - through the grace of God.
see Appendix
5
"Little Innocents?"
What
about infants who die?
It
is the opinion of most people that all infants who die go to heaven.
2Samuel 12:19-23. "I shall go to him but he shall not return to
me". We all hope this means that such little ones are safe. Many
great teachers have taught that infants who die are elect infants. "We
are convinced that all of our race who die in infancy are included in
the election of grace... the whole spirit and tone of the Word of God
as well as the nature of god Himself lead us to believe that all who
leave this world as babes are saved." Come ye Children by C H Spurgeon.
page 37.
Spurgeon
believed that all dying infants are elect infants, redeemed by the blood
of Jesus and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. He believed they are safe
because of the Goodness of God. "We read of God that he is so tender
that he would not have the mouth of the ox muzzled when treading out
the corn. He cares for the bird upon the nest,... Shall we believe,
with such universal goodness as His, that He would cast away the infant
soul?" He believed the grace of God renders it highly improbable
( if not impossible) that infant souls should be destroyed. "God
has been able to save to the uttermost them that come unto God by Christ
and does it seem consistent with such grace as this that it should altogether
pass by myriads of little ones, who wear the image of the earthly Adam,
and yet have never worn the image of the heavenly?"
Spurgeon
believed that heaven would have millions of children there. He said
that since heaven would have such a host as no man could number, and
since Christians have always been in the minority in the world, "
I do not see it possible that so vast a number should enter heaven,
unless it be on the supposition that infant souls constitute the great
majority".
Infants
are not innocent. Scripture says they are sinners. Psalm 51:5. The simple
answer is that we do not know for certain that dead infants are all
the elect of God. God, who filled John the Baptist with the Holy Spirit
from the womb, is able to give grace to helpless infants. If our incapacity
to believe is no barrier to God's grace, why should infants not be saved?
"Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Gen. 18:25.
My own
personal conviction is that infants who die are safe in the arms of
Jesus. But their salvation is entirely due to the grace of God and nothing
to do with innocence or lack of understanding.
Are
little ones accountable?
The question
is asked "How can children be held accountable or responsible if
they are not aware that the wrong they do is serious in the sight of
God?"
Isaiah
7:15-16 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject
the wrong and choose the right. but before the boy ( Matthew Henry.
This boy in my arms, Shear-jashub) knows enough to reject the wrong
and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid
waste.
Jonah 4:11
But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who
cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well.
Should I not be concerned about that great city?"
These verses
present very flimsy evidence. The whole concept presents great problems.
For example:
1. The
age has to vary according to age, intellect, family background, etc.
2. At what
age do we seriously evangelise?
3. How
do we teach a mixed class? i.e. Church children and those from ungodly
homes.
4. Does
the child reach the age of accountability gradually or suddenly?
Irish Baptist
April 96 page 10 "The child and in particular the infant ...
has not received the light of God's law and when he does begin to receive
it, he does so little by little and becomes gradually more and more
culpable for his failure to do so. There is an age of innocence which
over a period of time passes into an age of full personal responsibility"
5. If the
child is covered until he deliberately refuses Christ, what constitutes
a refusal? ..after hearing the gospel once?
Is there
any passage in the New Testament to indicate that there is an age of
accountability?
Are
little ones not covered by the atonement?
"Surely
the truth is that all children are included in the great atoning sacrifice
and belong to Jesus Christ until they deliberately refuse Him."
WH Griffith-Thomas - Principles of Theology
"My
own ministry with children was certainly transformed from the time I
was able wholeheartedly to ... believe that all children have the status
of belonging to the Lord until such time as they may reject Him, and
that up to this moment of personal accountability, their original sin
is covered by the sovereignty of God and atonement of Christ".
John Inchley - Realities of Childhood.
I can see
no scripture that teaches that children are covered by the atonement
until they reject Christ. see Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin
entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this
way death came to all men, because all sinned--
So through
Adam, sin entered the world bringing death. Death came to all for all
have sinned. Nowhere do we read of any group being excluded because
of ignorance. Rather we read that death reigned.
see Romans
5:14 (NIV) Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the
time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command,
as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Death "fanned
out" upon all men; upon all Adam's descendants. We don't just follow
Adam's example, we are all included in Adam's action. His sin is our
sin. Adam's hand was my hand. Whether we think it fair or not, it happened
and death proves it. We all die. Death proves sin and children die,
even before they consciously reject Christ. There is nothing to exclude
even the youngest child and David includes those not yet born. Psalm
51:5. "sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
My own
ministry was certainly transformed from the time I realised that children
were lost and needed a Saviour. I dare not merely entertain children
or even teach only the mind. I teach and pray that God might be pleased
to save them all early in life.
Are
children able to understand sin?
The vocabulary
of sin used throughout the Bible is largely adult in nature. Think of
the lists of sin that we have in the Scripture. They are adult words.
Does this not indicate that God recognises that children are different?
Does it not indicate that God does not require children to answer for
what we would sometimes term their naughtiness? Romans 4:15 says "
…for where no law is [children], there is no transgression,"
and where there is no transgression God does not bring a charge to the
account of that person. Children are not under God's wrath.
For the
answer to argument, that the vast majority of sin words, or examples
of sin, are utterly meaningless to a pre-teen child, look at the Ten
Commandments. God has given us the Law, and we are to teach the law
to our children, and at least six of the Ten Commandments are meaningful
to a child, and are easily and naturally applicable to him. For example,
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me", "Honour
your parents", "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt
not bear false witness" and "Thou shalt not covet".
With the minimum of explanation the child can grasp that those refer
to him.
Deut.
6:6. Teach them to your children.
Deut.
31:11 -13 that they might 1. hear 2. learn 3. fear 4. do the words of
this law.
Listen
to some of the sins listed in Mark 7, Galatians 5 and Titus 3, and ask
yourself, can these easily be applied to a child? Would a child understand
what you are talking about if you applied them to his experience? Sins
like hatred, pride, wrath, envy, theft, lies, evil thoughts, malice
and disobedience. Cannot those be applied to children? If
you count up you will find that just about half of those list of sin
naturally are applied to children, and remember that these sins come
from the heart, and they come even from the heart of a child.
Are
children not in the kingdom?
Some say:
"Surely Christ himself taught that children are in the Kingdom
of God. A couple of passages in the New Testament speak about our Lord's
dealing with boys and girls. One of them is in Mark 10, where the Lord
Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid
them not: for of such is the Kingdom of God." "for the kingdom
belongs to such as these." NIV
The significance
of this text is that it means, on its face value, that children belong
to the Kingdom. The word "of such" is used something like
about 12 times in the New Testament, and in nearly all of these places
it could also be translated 'to such'. So we can conclude that Mark
10 says something like this: 'Let the children come to me for to them
belongs the Kingdom of Heaven'. There is no suggestion here that children
are in the Kingdom because of innocence, because of humility or because
of trustfulness. But they are in the Kingdom because of the free grace
of God., and because they are covered by Christ's death on Calvary.
Why did these little ones – many of them probably just toddlers
– run to the Saviour? It is because they were already in the Kingdom.
To turn
to the other passage, Matthew 18:1 – 14. The disciples were concerned
about greatness in the Kingdom of Heaven. They asked who would be the
greatest. As his visual answer, the Lord called a child to Him. Now
this was not a particularly chosen child. This was an ordinary child
running around somewhere near where the Lord was having his discourse.
By this action and by his subsequent teaching Jesus clearly implied
that that little fellow was in the Kingdom. You will notice in verse
3 that the Lord said "Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted
and become like little children" you wouldn't get into the Kingdom.
Then in verse 5 he said, "And whoso shall receive one such little
child in my name, receiveth me." He had his arm probably round
the little child – "Whoso shall receive one such little child
in my name, receiveth me." Would he have used that parallel, would
his arm have been round one who was by nature a child of wrath? No!
This child must have been in the Kingdom.
Further
down that passage, in verse 10, we read where the Lord Jesus said, "…despise
not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That their angels
do always behold the face of your Father which is in Heaven." He
says they are important to God, therefore they must be important to
you. Do not dare to presume that this one is saved and that this one
is not!
Commentators
are divided over the Greek word "toiouton" - of such.
Some say
it means:
1. Children
of believers as children
Matthew
Henry "The children of believing parents belong to the kingdom
of heaven and are members of the visible church" Matthew Poole
takes the same line connecting the words with infant baptism.
2. Not
to children but to those who are like children
Plummer
"those who are childlike in character are possessors of the
kingdom" This is also the view of Jerome and Lenski.
3. Both
children and the childlike.
Calvin
"Jesus includes both the little children and those who resemble
them". He does not specify if the children are children of believers.
Many recent writers hold this view even more strongly and refer the
words to children generally.
First of
all, let us deal with Mark 10:13 – 16. Verse 14 must be taken in
context. You cannot lift it out on its own. It must be there with verse
15: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid
them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you,
Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child
[or like a little child] he shall not enter therein."
This little
paragraph by Jesus teaches 2 things. We discover that Jesus loves children
and that He wants them to come to Him. Children should be allowed to
come to Jesus, and to hinder them coming is to grieve Him. Then Jesus
says that only those who come to Him like children do, can enter the
kingdom. The children in verse 14 have come to Him with love and with
trust and in verse 15 He declares that it is necessary for anyone to
receive Christ in that way. They must come as a child comes. I believe
that the important word is to come and receive. Jesus says come with
childlike faith. Nowhere does the Bible teach that all children are
in the Kingdom, rather it teaches that they are lost. Salvation is by
grace through faith for those who come to Christ. Children belong to
the Kingdom of God only if in simple trust they come to Christ.
We shall
now look at Matthew 18:1-14. This argument that says that a child by
nature is inside the Kingdom, conveniently overlooks one word in Matthew
18. It is one of the most important words in the chapter. Here again
you see Jesus is teaching two things.
The disciples
have come to Him and have asked Him the question, "Who then
is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?" He uses the little
child as a visual aid to teach that the qualification for entry into
the Kingdom of Heaven is conversion: "Except ye be converted
and become as little children" i.e. 'become insignificant'.
It teaches that the greatness in the Kingdom depends on being like a
child – humility is the word, or again this idea of insignificance.
Because we cannot always say that children are humble. In fact in Matthew
10 Jesus taught that children are not always humble. This particular
child is a symbol of complete dependence. Jesus said, "This little
child". Then he goes on in verse 5 and the verses following to
teach about children.
Do children
need conversion? What must I do to be saved? Answer – "Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." (Acts 16:31)
There is the important word that has been overlooked, believe! In
Matthew 18:6 it says "… whoso shall offend one of these
little ones which believe in me…" It is exactly the same
word as that word used by the apostles to the jailer: "Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved". In the original
it is exactly the same word as in John 3:16: "For God so loved
the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth
on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." I feel
sure that in verse 6 the words "little ones" refer
to the disciples as well; they mean more than children, but I am also
totally convinced that they mean children too. Here in the context with
a child in the midst and Jesus talking about children, do you think
He would have referred only to the disciples, and not to the child?
I think it is a gross misinterpretation to ignore the child. Children
can believe, and many do believe, but not all children believe. So there
is no warrant here for concluding that all children are included in
the Kingdom of God, for we have earlier concluded that from their earliest
days they are enemies of Christ.
What
about children with Christian parents?
1Cor.
7:14 "otherwise your children would be unclean but as it is they
are holy." They are not actually and inwardly holy persons but
having one Christian parent is enough to change their presumptive relations
to god; enough to make them Christian children as distinguished from
the children of unbelievers. Matthew Henry says "they are not to
be reckoned as part of the world but as part of the church".
Note the
context has absolutely nothing to do with the "baptism" of
infants. Suppose for one moment it is saying children are safe or "holy"
in the sense of being right with God. Why would God leave one such brief
statement in the middle of an explanation of what should be done in
a specific marriage problem. Why not say it in Matt18 or Mark 10? The
context is of a marriage that is under threat because one partner has
been saved. v12,13. The instruction is that if the unbeliever is willing
to live with the saved partner, there should be no separation. Why?
see how v14 begins. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified
by the wife". In this situation the believer is not defiled by
being married to an unbeliever. remember it is forbidden for a believer
to marry an unbeliever (v39 "only in the Lord" and 2Cor. 6:14
"do not be unequally yoked..") Rather than being defiled,
the unbelieving partner is "sanctified" by the believer. "Sanctified"
here can't mean "saved" for the husband/wife is an unbeliever.
The passage
goes on to say the children are "sanctified". The words "holy"
and "sanctified" mean the same thing. So in what sense are
children holy? It can't mean that they are saved for the unbelieving
wife or husband would be safe also and we have already see that they
are not. The "holy" child here is not a saved child but a
greatly privileged child. I believe Paul is using the concept of ritual
holiness here - the child is not an outcast. Remember children of an
"unclean" marriage in the Old Testament were to be put away
(Ezra 10:2,3)
If children
are safe because of a believing parent, why did Timothy need to be made
wise unto salvation? And why did the Philippian jailer's children need
to believe (Acts 16:34), assuming of course, as paedo-baptists do, that
he had young children?
Back to Teaching
index
[Top
of Page]
