# How Young is Too Young?



## jbergsing (Jul 15, 2007)

How old do you think a child has to be to really come to a true understanding of the Gospel and a saving faith? More specifically, I was wondering if a 7-year-old could legitimately be a believer if he/she is claiming a sincere belief in Christ?


----------



## sotzo (Jul 15, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> How old do you think a child has to be to really come to a true understanding of the Gospel and a saving faith? More specifically, I was wondering if a 7-year-old could legitimately be a believer if he/she is claiming a sincere belief in Christ?



Yes, a 7 year old can be a believer. The Bible knows of no age where one's confession of faith is more real, salvific, etc than a previous age. The wonderful nature of covenantal theology is that parents claim the promise of salvation on behalf of their children at baptism. They are henceforth considered a member, eventually coming to the table upon public confession of faith. 

Furthermore, I think some congregations make public confession too burdensome. I'm speaking of those times when the young person making the confession of faith is asked question after question by the minister and then having passed the "test" he turns to the congregation and is presented as a communing member. 

So, I believe we should encourage children to confess Chrirst as early as possible and get them to the table for the sacrament...there is no reason to hold off if you know your child has trusted Christ.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jul 15, 2007)

I think I had a good understanding at the age of 4, but everybody is different.


----------



## jsup (Jul 15, 2007)

Christ called me to Himself when I was 2 months shy of 7 years old. I knew it was real because the change in my life was quite evident even at that age. Praise God! But I do look at some 7 year olds now and say, "Wow! They seem so much younger than I was when I got saved." I think a lot of it has to do with maturity, but it has everything to do with God. As a Southern Baptist, we never embraced the Covenant theology for children. We wait for legitimate repentance and sincerity.


----------



## sotzo (Jul 15, 2007)

jsup said:


> As a Southern Baptist, we never embraced the Covenant theology for children. We wait for legitimate repentance and sincerity.



Wait before doing what?


----------



## Ivan (Jul 15, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Wait before doing what?


----------



## jsup (Jul 15, 2007)

I figured what I said was self-explanatory: We believe parents can't claim the salvation of their children, the children are born depraved sinners. We wait for legitimate repentance and sincerity of these children before they are considered Christians. If they never turn, they're never considered saved. If they do, they are.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 15, 2007)

John,

I don't mean to belittle the question but to answer it firmly would be presumptuous as well as reveal a defective theology. 

I'm going to move this into the theology section. It kind of spills over into a couple of theological topics - most notably Baptism - and really reveals the difference in assumptions about the nature of discipleship and growth. It is impossible for me to answer this without directly criticizing the theological misunderstandings that equate intellectual maturity with faith. In one sense, biology and capacity for understanding are then what we bring to the table so God is now able to save us.

This is one of the many conversations that Rev. Winzer and I had a couple of weeks ago. There is a tendency among some to view faith as something that displays itself in a spontaneous and mature fashion in the believer upon its gifting. Faith is restricted, by these, to the mature and there is an expectation that, if God has regenerated/converted a man it happens in one fell swoop. The man now embraces Christ in a way that can be clearly articulated, others can understand, and these are then the only proper recipients for fellowship. All other less biologically mature expressions are seen as not faith or, worse, these are said to be "in Adam" until the child's maturity cooperates with Grace.

In fact, discipleship implies a maturing process. It is part of the reason I maintain the concept of family solidarity because Scripture and the light of nature reveal that our lives are not bifurcated into spiritual and physical. I don't expect a child to spontaneously pop into existence as a mature adult and the Scriptures are replete with instructions on how children _are_ to be nurtured in the way of spiritual maturity. I've argued repeatedly that those that no longer see their children in the light they have always been seen have literally no use for many of the Proverbs and Psalms as they are written to parents of children.

In fact, with adults, can *any* of us say we have a saving understanding of the things of God? That is to say, is our _understanding_ of the things that which saves us? It assumes that our salvation rests on a sliding scale of understanding. Pass that point of understanding and you are saved, fall below it and you are yet dead in your sins and trespasses.

I am convinced that even 2 years ago I sinfully held to some things that I now reject as un-Scriptural. Am I more saved now because I don't believe that way anymore? God forbid. It is faith that saves. I pointed this fact out just yesterday to a 73 year old Okinawan woman who has believed since she was 8. She has walked with God under the persecution of family and friends and a culture hostile to Christianity. God has sanctified her greatly in 65 years as a Christian. But, I pointed out, she is no more saved now than she was at age 8. Faith is the instrument of our Justification and not our sanctification - including sanctification as it relates to maturation of our understanding.

Thus, if you want to know how young is too young for a *true* understanding of the Gospel, I will tell you that NONE of us have a completely *true* understanding of the Gospel. We are all yet sinful and do not understand it fully. I will also tell you that there is no such thing as too young for God to place His Sovereign favor on a child and save him to the uttermost!


----------



## sotzo (Jul 15, 2007)

jsup said:


> I figured what I said was self-explanatory: We believe parents can't claim the salvation of their children, the children are born depraved sinners. We wait for legitimate repentance and sincerity of these children before they are considered Christians. If they never turn, they're never considered saved. If they do, they are.



Joshua:

Sorry...did not intend anything other than a genuine question. 

I just wasn't clear from your post on what you meant by "we wait" in light of the original question "More specifically, I was wondering if a 7-year-old could legitimately be a believer if he/she is claiming a sincere belief in Christ?". 

Also, covenant theology is in agreement with you in your statement that: "We believe parents can't claim the salvation of their children, the children are born depraved sinners." It would certainly agree that the children are born depraved and that parents can't claim salvation for their children, if by the latter you mean the parents' claim bestows salvation on the child. 

What parents _do_ claim on the child's behalf, in a covenantal framework, is God's _promise_ to work through the upbringing of children in the Church, to bring them to a saving knowledge of him. That is, although they have not yet exercised saving faith, they are part of the visible Church...and, therefore, quite distinct from unbelievers outside the Church.


----------



## jsup (Jul 15, 2007)

Hey Joel,

I wasn't uptight, so I hope I didn't come across that way. 

Certainly 7 year old kids can become Christians with a genuine and sincere faith in Christ. Before I was 7, God was convicting me of my sins and drawing me to Himself. I was saved right before I turned 7. There are some kids who are selfishly interested for the "glory" of it all, but my life was changed and I know many other young kids have had their lives changed. Southern Baptists look for repentance and a spiritual change to determine if the profession of Christ is genuine (even in kids).

I'd love to know more about the Covenant theology because all the PCA members I have met have been very vague about it. Basically, this theology states that the parents can claim the _promise_ of salvation for their children. My two questions are these: Where can this promise be found (in Scripture) and how do the parents know that God will do a saving work in their life? I've never had anyone explain it in its entirety.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 16, 2007)

jsup said:


> Hey Joel,
> 
> I wasn't uptight, so I hope I didn't come across that way.
> 
> ...


I would not put it this way.

I would say this:

1. Everyone in the Covenant is signified with this promise: If you believe upon Christ then you will be saved.
2. Children of believers are in the Covenant.
3. They receive the sign that promises that, if they believe upon Christ, they will be saved.
4. Parents do not _know_ that God has elected a child any more than you _know_ that anyone in your congregation is elect. Rather, such as are in the Church are brought before the Word regularly (which does convert) and raised from the knee and enjoined to call upon the name of the Lord. Parents pray for their children and, in the Providence of God, He uses those prayers to His ends.
5. Parenting and covenant nurture does not supplant election any more than preaching and prayer do. It is the difference between _hidden_ things and _revealed_ things.



> GEN 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
> 
> GAL 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
> 
> ...


----------



## jsup (Jul 16, 2007)

So based on points 1 through 3, everyone on earth can be considered part of this Covenant since anyone could believe upon Christ and be saved (Lord willing). Lost people or children of lost parents are part of this Covenant since they could believe upon Christ and be saved. (???) Or does it have to consist of being raised in church?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 16, 2007)

No, prior to making silly comments, one should read the entire text to include the text that says that children of believers are in the Covenant.

If you want to learn, you really ought to read first. I know I can accurately describe your position. Can you do the same for mine or do you just want to play the clown?


----------



## govols (Jul 16, 2007)

Why do you include Acts 2:38-39?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 16, 2007)

John,

I assume by _you_, you mean me.

I include it because Peter is addressing the Covenant community. While it might work for a man in America to think of his children apart from him, this idea would be completely foreign to the Jewish mind.

The term "...you and your children..." is Covenantal language. It is the language of Promise. It is the same language that Abraham received. The only people that miss this are those that _a priori_ have decided that this cannot be a fulfillment of that same language.


----------



## govols (Jul 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> John,
> 
> I assume by _you_, you mean me.



Sorry Rich, I meant to put your name in there. 

Would the inclusion of "to all who are far off" be the precursor, per se, of what Paul describes as the mystery of the Gospel? That the Promise, the Holy Spirit from 1:4, would not stop with just those that heard the Gospel but would be for all generations assuming that it would be, "as many as the Lord our God will call."


----------



## jsup (Jul 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> No, prior to making silly comments, one should read the entire text to include the text that says that children of believers are in the Covenant.
> 
> If you want to learn, you really ought to read first. I know I can accurately describe your position. Can you do the same for mine or do you just want to play the clown?



Honestly, I don't see what was silly or clownish about my comments or how you took it that way. I presented genuine questions about this theology that I was unsure of. I'm trying to understand this doctrine because it seems to be conflicting. So here are my thoughts:

A. Children of the saved are under the promise that if they believe in Christ, they will be saved. It seems to me that anyone can be under this promise since anyone can be saved. See what I'm saying? One doesn't have to have saved parents to be assured salvation if they believe in Christ, right?
B. Children can be raised in church, prayed for, and nurtured in the Word, but it does not guarantee salvation. Basically, this point sounds just like what SBC believes.

None of this has been written sarcastically. These are just a few kinks I'm trying to work out in my mind.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 16, 2007)

govols said:


> Sorry Rich, I meant to put your name in there.
> 
> Would the inclusion of "to all who are far off" be the precursor, per se, of what Paul describes as the mystery of the Gospel? That the Promise, the Holy Spirit from 1:4, would not stop with just those that heard the Gospel but would be for all generations assuming that it would be, "as many as the Lord our God will call."



Sure, but it can include both. I think a common disconnect here is the idea that somehow the substance of the promise made to Abraham was any different.

Peter reiterated a _promise_, he did not guarantee election.

It's kind of superfluous to add "...and to your children..." if all he means is that if they're elect. People would think: "Umm...duh."

What would the inclusion of children add to the promise if all it is the idea that "Oh, by the way, this promise applies to your children too, if they're elect." Try to picture yourself having studied the Scriptures as a Hebrew, raising your child from the knee where the first words out of his mouth that you teach him are the Shema as you obey the command to teach these things to your children in anticipation of the Abrahamic promise.

You hear this promise that Peter gives you and you really expect me to believe that all they thought was: "Oh, he's referring to our children only if they're elect. I completely understand that all my children were in the Covenant 5 minutes ago but now they're not. Yippee! That is GOOD news indeed!"


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 16, 2007)

jsup said:


> Honestly, I don't see what was silly or clownish about my comments or how you took it that way. I presented genuine questions about this theology that I was unsure of. I'm trying to understand this doctrine because it seems to be conflicting. So here are my thoughts:
> 
> A. Children of the saved are under the promise that if they believe in Christ, they will be saved. It seems to me that anyone can be under this promise since anyone can be saved. See what I'm saying? One doesn't have to have saved parents to be assured salvation if they believe in Christ, right?
> B. Children can be raised in church, prayed for, and nurtured in the Word, but it does not guarantee salvation. Basically, this point sounds just like what SBC believes.
> ...



I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you but I assumed you must have read everything about election and means that preceded.

It is no coincidence that we don't find many Christians in Saudi Arabia.

Certainly there is a sense in which the Promise is available to all of mankind but how can they believe upon Him they have not heard?

I would ask that you read my initial post about maturation. I care less about the fact that Baptists would apply the sign to their children rather than the fact that they would treat their children less like pagans and more like those that they have been charged by God to pray for, cry over, plead with, and do everything in their power to be a _means_ to their salvation. 

It's the hard corps Baptists that want to force the "my kids are in Adam" language that scare me (for their kids' sake) the most. Most of the others, ironically, focus their evangelism efforts at kids and even have "children's moments" where the Pastor has them pray as if God hears their prayers. I personally love this inconsistency.

Key in on the fact that the kids are *in the Covenant* and are, therefore, immersed in the Church's means of Grace. Johnny the pagan, Suzie the Mormon, and Habib the Muslim down the street certainly have the same promise but not in the way that a child that has had the mark placed upon him, setting him apart, and with the Church committing to spend itself toward the spiritual benefit of that child.

Find me a believer and you'll find a person that has heard the Gospel.

Even among Baptists the _vast_ majority are children of believers in spite of the stated theological idea that God's election is completely indeterminate.


----------



## Herald (Jul 16, 2007)

I've stayed out of this discussion because I saw it invariably heading down the road to a baptism debate. But I need to jump in for a moment and offer some advice to Joshua.

Joshua - venturing into a Covenant Theology discussion without doing a bit of homework is going to get you into an ugly mess on the Puritan Board. Many of the threads on the issue of baptism (which is an integral part of C.T.) center on the definition of terms. I believe it would be helpful for you to read up on C.T. and aquaint yourself with its theological distinctives. I have done that and it has given me a better understanding of why they believe what they do. One reason why it took me so long to research C.T. was the unfounded fear that I would become C.T. myself. Ignorance is bliss! 

I'm going to challenge you to get a good book on C.T. The owner of this board has published one such book titled, "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology." It is not an exhaustive treatise but it does a good job in explaining the fundamental beliefs of C.T. It should provide you with a decent framework of C.T. I read it and was educated a bit more. I haven't become a C.T. (although Rich is secretly whispering _"Not yet!"_), but I was provoked to study for myself. All of us should do that.

Blessings.


----------



## sotzo (Jul 16, 2007)

Joshua:

Having grown up Southern Baptist, I understand completely your struggle trying to work through these things...

First, I commend the following pamphlet to you which is perhaps the best concise explanation of infant baptism in light of the covenant:
http://www.librarything.com/work-info.php?book=4315888
It will explain baptism from the covenantal framework much better than I can do here.

Second, it all goes back to OT circumcision in Gen 17. God establishes a covenant with Abraham _and his descendants_. Notice the heart of the covenant is that God will be "your [Abraham's] God and the God of your descendants after you". The covenant includes his children and their chidren's children, etc. Notice also that the covenant is in force for even the unborn descendants who are coming after Abraham..in other words, there is no exercise of saving faith and then covenant...it is covenant then saving faith. 

God then gives Abraham a sacrament, which is a sign and seal of the covenant - that is, circumcision. Notice again, the covenant has been established prior to even children being born(v. 10 of Chap 17) and now the sign of that covenant is applied without the child being able to exercise saving faith. In v. 14 the sign of the covenant (circumcision) is so closely identified with the covenant itself that there is no distinguishable difference between the two.."Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh...he has broken my covenant". In other words, circumcision was part and parcel of saving faith...it was the means by which one was initiated into the believing community and treated in such a way as to be understood that "this child is to be treated as a believer until evidence to the contrary". 

With that OT context, baptism is precisely the same thing, including both male and female as the Gospel naturally throws the door open wide to everyone. 

The difference is this - when I pray for my baptized children, I pray that there is never a day that they don't know Jesus as Savior...in my Baptist days people prayed that _one day_ their child would know Jesus as Savior. The former fully acknowledges God's sovereignty over my childrens' salvation...the latter puts the decision in their court. 

Don't get me wrong...the Gospel is freely offered to all. However, the Bible is clear on God's normative action of bringing his kingdom to earth via redeemed families. It has been this way since Genesis.

Blessings to you brother!


----------



## jsup (Jul 16, 2007)

Thanks guys. I never meant for this thread to de-rail onto Covenant theology. I'll read up more  and hopefully answer the questions floating around in my head. 

I was raised a Southern Baptist and now I'm a Reformed Southern Baptist by choice. That sounds like a paradox . I definitely don't stand with my mistaken Arminian brothers who leave it to man. 

Thanks for the info guys.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 16, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> How old do you think a child has to be to really come to a true understanding of the Gospel and a saving faith? More specifically, I was wondering if a 7-year-old could legitimately be a believer if he/she is claiming a sincere belief in Christ?



Going back to the op, the answer is yes they can. 

Since you are in the PCA are you wondering whether a 7 year old is ready to make a credible profession of faith and understand and live up to the necessary vows to become a communing member?


----------



## Civbert (Jul 16, 2007)

jsup said:


> ... I'd love to know more about the Covenant theology because all the PCA members I have met have been very vague about it....


 This is why Federal Visionism has been so difficult to deal with in the PCA. 


jsup said:


> ... Basically, this theology states that the parents can claim the _promise_ of salvation for their children.


 And that is Federal Vision theology. I understand your confusion about what people are saying regarding Covenant Theology - I share them.


----------



## jbergsing (Jul 16, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> Going back to the op, the answer is yes they can.
> 
> Since you are in the PCA are you wondering whether a 7 year old is ready to make a credible profession of faith and understand and live up to the necessary vows to become a communing member?


Yes. Specifically, it is my son who is making these comments.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 17, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> Yes. Specifically, it is my son who is making these comments.



Needless to say, this is a good thing that your son is showing the signs that he is improving upon his baptism. A couple of things you need to remember as a parent is that not only will your son be able to take communion but he will become a full communing member of the church. As a communing member he will take vows. The following is from chapter 57 of the PCA BCO:




> *(All of) you being here present to make a public
> profession of faith, are to assent to the following declarations and
> promises, by which you enter into a solemn covenant with God
> and His Church.
> ...



As one who has examined children coming before a Session I would recommend that you not only go over with your son the fundementals of the faith but make sure he understands the vows he will be taking before God and His Church. You might want to go over Chapter 22 of the WCF on Oaths and Vows.


----------

