Teaching Children
Biblical Basis of Child Evangelism
Edited
transcript of a discussion at CEF Easter conference in the 1970’s
to
highlight the importance of evangelising Children
Participants:
David McFarland
– defending Child Evangelism
JG–
presenting the arguments against Child Evangelism
Introduction:
From
a number of quarters today there come arguments against Child Evangelism,
and they are becoming much more common here in Northern Ireland. Today
you can enter Bible Bookshops and buy literature that tears in pieces
many of the things that we believe. We have been asked to present the
answers to some of these arguments. So today, to present one side of
that argument we have Jennifer Gowan from North Antrim. Jennifer is
usually very honest, and tells you very clearly what she believes. I
am going to tell you that what she is going to say today is something
Jennifer does not believe herself. Please keep that in mind. So this
tape must be replayed completely as a recording or else someone may
get the wrong impression.
JG
One
of the main problems of evangelising children is whether or not children
are responsible to God. Are they accountable to God for their actions?
How can they be responsible if they are not really aware that the wrong
that they do is serious in the light of God’s holiness and justice?
Now
the Bible does not discuss an age of accountability. There is nowhere
in the Scriptures where we read plainly such and such is the age of
accountability, and before that age children are not accountable to
God for their actions. However, there are hints in Scripture that God
does have an age of accountability. There are a few verses that seem
to indicate that there is an age of responsibility. Before that age
children are not responsible.
Isaiah
7:15-16 – "… that he may know to refuse the evil,
and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil,
and choose the good …" - when the child shall know how
to refuse the evil and to choose the good.
Jonah
4:11 – speaking about Nineveh the Lord said – "…
should I not spare Nineveh, that great city wherein there are more than
sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand
and their left hand…?"
Also
in the book of Nehemiah you have the prophet Ezra. In Nehemiah 8:2 it
says "And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation
both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding..."
So
we see that there is an age of accountability. Have we any right to
evangelise children before they reach that age?
Furthermore,
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 in nature. 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. Children are not lost.
Think
of a human situation. Think of an earthly father. That earthly father
would not severely reprimand his little one for doing something that
that little one did not know offended his father! No, the father would
explain, and leading to full understanding, and only then, would rebellion
be severely punished. Is not God a far more loving and just Father?
This view that children are not responsible until they reach a certain
age does not deny that all mankind is depraved. Gradually in the life
of a child, as reason dawns, children know something of right and wrong.
With this partial understanding there will be partial responsibility.
In the course of time they will become fully accountable for the sin
and rebellion of their own will. But it is only in the course of time.
The
age at which children become fully responsible varies. In a Christian
home it could be quite young – 4, 5 or 7. But for those children
who some would seek to evangelise – the non-church child –
surely the age of accountability cannot be before the age of 12. If
children are not accountable or responsible it is totally inconsistent
to expect them to be able to make a responsible, considered commitment
of their life to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. They are psychologically
not ready for repentance and faith, so we should not evangelise them.
If
children are not responsible or accountable, how then do they stand
before God? From what we know of the character of God we must conclude
that all children who die are safe. The loving and just God revealed
in the Scriptures would not condemn a little one. The only conclusion
we can reach is that such little ones are covered by Christ’s death
on Calvary. But, wait a minute. We must bring this argument to its logical
conclusion. A child who dies is safe. Was that child also safe the day
before he died or was he lost? We can only conclude that he was safe,
and so we must reach this important conclusion that will affect our
attitude to children – all children are included and covered the
great atoning death of Christ. All belong to Him until as responsible
people they deliberately refuse Him.
David McFarland:
It
almost sounds convincing! Isn’t it amazing that a so-called doctrine
of the age of accountability is based on such flimsy evidence from scripture!
I challenge you to find another verse to add to the three that were
quoted. Surely to base such a serious doctrine on such vague references
is folly.
As
for John Inchley’s argument, that the vast majority of sin words,
or examples of sin, are utterly meaningless to a pre-teen child, we
have to go no further than what we were teaching in Good News Club this
past winter – 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.
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.
Children
are sinners by nature, and they are not too old before they know what
is right and what is wrong. Two quotations for that argument listen
to them: ‘God does not make a charge against the children. Children
are not under wrath.’ Forget about the logic of what a human father
might do. Forget about human reasoning. What do the scriptures say?
That is the basis of what we must believe and teach. Children are born
in sin. Children are "shapen in iniquity"; they are
"estranged from the womb"; they "go astray as
soon as they be born", and listen to this, "We are
by nature the children of wrath". Everyone born into this world
is born in Adam and "in Adam all die"; "Death
has passed upon all" and "The soul that sinneth it
shall die". Jesus said to Nichodemas that we who are born of
the flesh "must be born again" if we are to see the
Kingdom of Heaven.
Does
it even once in those verses hint that children are separate or that
children are not included? We must believe in the overwhelming evidence
of the Word of God that every child is depraved and needs to be regenerated.
His sin, is sin against God, against a loving God certainly, but remember
God is more than love. God is a God of holiness, a God of justice and
a God of righteousness. Can I say that if we believe this, and if we
accept this, it could perhaps revolutionise our attitude to the very
young children who come to Holiday Bible School this summer. Not only
that, but it could revolutionise our attitude also to that primary class
in Sunday School or your attitude as a superintendent, as you pray about
who the next teacher of that primary class will be.
If
those children are sinners by nature then we must start very early to
teach the truth of the Word of God. How ridiculous then is the argument
when it says, or tries to say, that it does not deny the depravity of
all mankind. To talk of reason dawning gradually, and to talk of partial
responsibility is ludicrous! What scripture references are given for
this gradual or partial responsibility? What scripture references are
given for the scale of the ages of when a child becomes fully responsible?
Not one, because there are none! Can I just leave you with this point?
What happens if one of those children who are partially responsible
dies? Where is it then? Partially saved? Do we believe in purgatory?
It is ridiculous!
The
argument was also put forward that children are psychologically incapable
of repentance and faith. How does the sinner receive salvation? "By
grace are ye saved through faith", and there is only one way
of salvation – children and adults must be saved in the same way
– by grace. Faith is only an instrument. We are not saved on account
of our faith, but through faith. Yesterday morning the preacher in church
was talking about this, and he likened faith to a coupling in a railway
carriage. The coupling does not pull the carriage but the engine does,
through the coupling. The argument implies that an adult or a teenager
has more faith than a child does, but really it would almost appear
to be the other way around.
The
size of our faith does not determine whether we are saved or not. But
even that is not the real answer to this point of the argument. The
answer is found in the book of Corinthians – 1 Corinthians 2:14
for example – "The natural man receiveth not the things
of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: Neither can
he know them". Also 2 Corinthians 4:3 - 4 "…if
our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the God
of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not…"
All of us are psychologically incapable of faith and repentance. None
of us, unless the Spirit of God works on our minds and our hearts, can
believe. It is not a psychological problem at all: It is spiritual.
The grace and the mercy of God grants us repentance and grants us faith,
and Jesus said little ones can have faith.
Jesus
tells us that little ones can believe in Matthew 18. The issue before
us today is not the death of children, but the evangelisation of those
who are still alive! That is our responsibility. There is a great danger
in using human logic as the argument does. God tells us that His ways
are far above our ways and His thoughts are far above ours. To make
a statement that all children are safe contradicts the teaching of scripture,
for we are repeatedly told that all are lost apart from the grace of
God. The Word of God gives us clear instruction of the need to evangelise
every creature, and salvation is entirely of the Lord whether we are
dealing with adults or with children. Let us make absolutely clear that
our basis of belief is the Word of God. For human logic has led men
astray for centuries.
Can
I close this point with a verse from the book of Deuteronomy 29:29,
"The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, Those things which
are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may
do all the words of this law."
JG
The
argument about evangelising children is not based only on human logic,
nor is it exclusively one that children are passively safe. 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." Now this
is a very important text, "for of such is the Kingdom of God."
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, which our friends in Child Evangelism Fellowship
quote often, 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" (note he didn’t
look at the little boy) "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!
Yet
further down the passage we come to the parable that is commonly known
as, and misnamed, ‘The Lost Sheep’. If you look at it this
was a straying sheep. He left the fold. He went out on the hillside.
He started to wander away. Oh yes, children will stray, but they are
not lost, not yet. Not until they deliberately and intelligently say
no to the Saviour are they lost. J. B. Philips puts this very strongly
in verse 14 "You can understand then that it is never the will
of their father in Heaven that a single one of these little ones should
be lost." So we should approach children as those who belong
to the Saviour; those who have a growing relationship with Jesus Christ.
However this is a far cry from the narrow evangelism, which we so often
see.
David
McFarland:
An
attack from 2 very precious portions of Scripture!
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. The French
Bible in its translation of this says, "For the Kingdom of God
is for those who resemble children, of such and to such." The
word "of such" can be translated either way, but the
vast majority of commentators agree that it means that we are to come
like children. It does not mean what the argument is made out to believe.
I believe that the important word is to come and receive. Jesus says
come like a child. Receive like a child. It must be taken in context
and it must also be taken in context with the whole of scripture. 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. Our opponents seem quite oblivious to the fact that it is
there, and yet 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, or for that matter anyone else,
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 must say that I feel sure that verse 6 and the words
"little ones" refer to the disciples as well. They
mean more than children, but I am also totally convinced that it means
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.
Further
down the chapter, concerning whether children are saved or lost, it
is not presumptuous to say that they are lost. Supposing we leave out
verse 11, the verse that actually uses the word "lost",
many manuscripts do not have it in there; we find that Jesus used the
same parable in Luke 15 referring to lost sheep on another occasion.
He said, "lose one", "go after that which is lost"
and "when you have found that which is lost…."
He continually referred to the fact that they are lost, and here I believe
that it is just the same story told on another occasion. The word "lost"
is not used if you leave out verse 11, but "sheep gone astray"
will soon be lost forever. He talks in verse 14 about "perishing",
and in verse 13 He says "if so be that he find it".
In the stories that Jesus told one sheep was lost and it was found,
but He is also saying "if so be that he find it". He
is implying that not all will be found. Paul says that everyone without
the Gospel is lost. Jesus said, He came to save the lost. If we are
not lost we cannot be saved. Jesus said, "… it is not the
will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones
should perish." This very clearly means that it is possible
for them to perish. Children do not naturally belong to Christ; they
are lost in sin, and they need to be told of a Saviour who has come
seeking for the lost.
JG
A
somewhat different argument against the evangelism of children is that
which looks at the family unit. God has ordained that the family should
be the basic unit in society. He, in His wisdom, planned that the family
stay together, sticking together; the children looking up to parents
and being instructed by parents, should be the basis of a stable society.
We can see that from the commandments very clearly, number 5: "Honour
thy father and thy mother".
Now
as we look around us we see many children who are children of people
who would not want their children evangelised, and should those children
come to faith in Christ what do we do? We break the family unit. Now
there are enough forces breaking up the family unit as it is, without
us, in the Christian church, contributing to that. We must keep the
family unit together. The parents of children who are evangelised must
be consulted. If we are going to evangelise the non-church child it
is imperative that we have the permission of the parents. Also can we
justify leading a child to Christ when we know the home situation is
totally opposed to it? The traumatic upheaval of a child going in having
trusted the Lord, and suddenly to meet with rejection, discouragement
and opposition is far too much for a child to cope with. He cannot take
it, and we are depriving him of the basic rights of a child to enjoy
the security and encouragement and comfort of parental care. It is a
far more thorough and God-honouring way to reach the child through the
parents.
David
McFarland:
While
I agree that God has ordained family life, and that He has given parents
great responsibility to their children, and children a duty to honour
their parents, there is a higher duty for us to observe. The duty to
parents quoted is the fifth commandment, but commandments one, two,
three and four all concern our duty to God. Duty to God comes first.
Jesus said the first commandment was to love God. The second commandment
was to love your neighbour. To obey God is our first responsibility,
and He has declared that the Gospel is to be preached to all, and He
warned that not everybody would accept it. Jesus himself said, in Matthew
10:34 – 36, "Think not that I am come to send peace on
earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a
man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother,
and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s
foes shall be they of his own household."
Parents
may not wish their children to attend, and very often we find that this
is true. Does that mean that we don’t even try? We must try. But
I must stress that it must be done wisely. It must be done prayerfully,
and above all it must be done openly. We went to Pomeroy a couple of
years ago, and went around a large Catholic housing estate inviting
parents to allow the children to come to our meeting. Sixty children
were allowed to come to our meeting. Their blood is not on our hands.
We go and attempt to bring the Gospel to them. We cannot sit back and
say, "Oh, their parents probably wouldn’t allow us to reach
them."
The
argument asks, can you justify leading a child to Christ if he is going
back into that sort of environment. The answer is yes, provided we have
been true to the Word of God in teaching the whole Gospel. The questions
we must ask ourselves are, have we taught the child that Jesus said
it would not be easy to be a Christian? and have we sought to show him
the change that is necessary in a Christian life? We live in an age
of ‘easy believeism’, and easy discipleship. To be a Christian
costs, and a child from a potentially antagonistic home, and indeed
all children, should be taught how it will cost him to be a Christian.
In the Bible Lesson in the weekly teaching, as well as in the counselling
that may be done.
A
child might be deprived of its so-called family rights, but is it not
better that a child rues his family rights than to miss being in the
family of God for ever? The Word of God says, "When my father
and mother forsake me then God will take me up." God is able
to keep children in the most difficult surroundings, and children have
often been used by God to lead the most antagonistic parents to Jesus
Christ. I will agree that the Christian home is the ideal place to evangelise
children. The Word of God makes it an essential duty of you and I as
parents to evangelise our own children. We must not leave it to the
church, Sunday school or Good News teacher. But if we evangelise only
the children in Christian homes perhaps as many as ninety-five percent
will never be reached, and if we try to evangelise the parents of that
ninety-five percent first millions will never ever hear. For the vast
majority of those who come to Christ come before they are parents. Jesus
said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every
creature."
Conclusion:
There
are no more arguments to be answered. We hope and we pray that we have
not confused you. I would like to say a special word of thanks to Jennifer
and my own wife. They spent hours talking this over, and there is so
much more to think about. There is no doubt that there will be many
more hours. I would like to publicly thank them for their help, and
I would like Jennifer to come up here and finish off this little session.
JG
This
is one of the rare occasions when I couldn’t even pray that the
Lord would give me liberty! You know sentimental attachment to children
will never make you do anything. Before I came in to work with Child
Evangelism Fellowship I took a very close look at the Biblical basis.
I think that you will have seen, as I saw, that we cannot escape the
fact that God says children are lost. Furthermore, we cannot escape
the fact that we know they can be saved.
Now
I want to leave the challenge with you that if children are lost - the
multitudes of children if they are lost - can you and I stand idly by?
They can be reached, and by God’s grace they can be saved. Surely
when we see so clearly from the Word of God what He requires of us,
in our hearts we must say, "Lord, what will you have me to do?"
see Appendix 5
"Little Innocents?"
Back to Teaching
index
[Top
of Page]
