When is a child old enough to follow Jesus?

[onlinebuddy]

This is the problem I have with a lot of Christian denominations that seem to emphasize conversion, and talk about being "born again" as if it were a singular event. They look down their noses at us mainliners because we baptize infants. They say, "an infant can't understand what it's doing." I tell you: I don't understand Jesus' message of unconditional love any better today, after 4 years of seminary and then 20+ years of practicing in ministry, than I did the day I was baptized at the age of 2 months. I am no more qualified to receive that free gift of grace now than I was then.

TheGrungeDiva,

This is the problem I have with a lot of Christian denominations that seem to emphasize conversion, and talk about being "born again" as if it were a singular event.

There's nothing wrong with talking about being "born again." Jesus talked to Nicodemus (John 3:3) about being "born again" didn't he?

Being born again may not be a singular event. However, it does not take a lifetime either. Most people take it for granted that they are Christians because they are born in a Christian family or because they have a Christian name, or because they go to Church. That's man's doctrine. The Bible never supports this doctrine.

God sees you as a Christian when you make your decision to follow Jesus. This decision cannot be made by a baby. Being born again is a decision. How long does it take to make a decision? Surely not a lifetime!
One doesn't have to be perfect to be born again. Yes, one needs to understand sin and the sacrifice of Jesus. One needs to be old enough to commit to the ways of Christ (Luke 9:23). One must be willing to give up their habitual sins (Acts 26:20), and continue to do so daily. It is a new beginning, and not the attainment of perfection.

I tell you: I don't understand Jesus' message of unconditional love any better today, after 4 years of seminary and then 20+ years of practicing in ministry, than I did the day I was baptized at the age of 2 months.

Understanding unconditional love, the way Jesus did, and practicing it may take a lifetime. However, committing your life to Christ does not take a lifetime. God requires every single human being to commit their lives to Him (not just priests and pastors and the like). Off course, one cannot be perfect, and will experience a failure to adhere to God's word from time to time, as long as they repent and move on, and they are under the grace of God.

If you read the Book of Acts, people began to follow Christ within a matter of minutes or days from the time they were called. It was never within a matter of years, or over a lifetime. That's stretching the grace of God too far.

They look down their noses at us mainliners because we baptize infants. They say, "an infant can't understand what it's doing."

Talking about baptizing babies, it seems like a very good thing to do, but the Lord has never instructed us to baptize our infants. If we choose to do it out of our faith, we may go ahead and do it. However making a doctrine of it is unwarranted. So we must not stress on it or get offended when someone questions us. The practice of baptizing infants came as a result of our subscription to the doctrines we were born into. Every individual must look into the Bible and ask this question: Am I following God's commands or the tradition of man?

I was baptized as a 2 month old baby. However, I never say that I was saved at the age of 2 months. It makes no sense. At that age, I was a citizen of heaven. I wasn't accountable to God and I did not have to be saved. Once a baby grows, he volunteers (or chooses) to sin. That's when he begins to be in need of being saved, because sin separates man from God.

And yes, all of us know that infants cannot understand sin and the sacrifice of Jesus.

Whether a person is a mainliner or an offshoot it does not matter to God. Everyone must obey God the way God wants.

I am no more qualified to receive that free gift of grace now than I was then.

Regarding being qualified for His grace, no one (except Jesus) can qualify. That's why we need to be born again and accept a second chance from God, to live our lives the right way.

 

[onlinebuddy]

No, it's not that we "aren't particular." We ARE particular. We are particularly sure that there is no age of accountability.

And the reason we don't use any particular Bible verse to back it up is because it violates copyright laws (not to mention practicality) to quote the entire Bible. We read the whole of Scripture to show a loving, graceful God who doesn't judge souls the way a god must under that whole "age of accountability" structure. That picture simply contradicts all we believe about a loving, merciful God.

I am glad to see that there's no one so extreme in that first category to think that God would send a child to hell just because he or she died at some arbitrary age without having had gone through some ritual.

What is somewhat disappointing is that there are still many who are caught in this incorrect theology, despite this excellent question that challenges it. Since that age is arbitrary -- since just saying "13" or "21" or "35" or "99" isn't going to do it -- maybe you need to rethink your entire concept of salvation, realizing that it isn't something you do, but something God does to you, not once in some magic ritual with water and a preacher, but throughout your whole life.

TGD,
I appreciate you taking to time to reply. We have a good discussion going on here Although we have our differences, we do have Christ in common- that's encouraging! I have many things to say to you in reply to your post, but I have to log out at the moment. Will talk to you later. God bless

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

There's nothing wrong with talking about being "born again." Jesus talked to Nicodemus (John 3:3) about being "born again" didn't he?

I think you may have misunderstood me. I did not say there was anything wrong about talking about being "born again," or in fact about being born again. My problem is not what people call it, but rather what they believe about it.

Being born again may not be a singular event. However, it does not take a lifetime either.

I would say being "born again" is a singular event, but being saved takes a lifetime -- or at least being Christian does.

God sees you as a Christian when you make your decision to follow Jesus.

I disagree. God doesn't care about labels. As you and several others have said, this is man's teaching, not God's. God sees you as his child BEFORE you are born, when you're still a fetus in your mother's womb. You cannot make that decision for God.

Yes, you make a decision whether or not to follow Jesus. If you "decide to follow Jesus" by saying some trite memorized prayer or go for a swim in a bathtub or what ever singular event you want to do, and then go about life as if nothing has changed, then you're really not saved. If you go out and feed the poor, clothe the naked, love people unconditionally, then you are following Jesus, and God doesn't give a hoot whether you've been sprinkled, dunked, anointed, or christened.

That's a decision you make every day when you wake up in the morning. "I think I will go about doing the work of Jesus today" instead of "I have a meeting at 9:00 and then Yoga at 11, then pick up the kids at 3, and Soccer practice at 6:30...."

That's a decision you make every moment of your life.

And making the wrong decision in one moment is not going to damn you to hell for all eternity, any more than making the right decision in one moment but not following Jesus for the rest of your life makes you a Christian.

This decision cannot be made by a baby. Being born again is a decision.

Wrong. Jesus used the phrase "born again" for a reason. Being born is not a decision. Nor is being born again.

Choosing how you behave, once you learn who you are, and whose you are, is a decision.

That's the problem I have with the "born again" verbage. If you say that being born again is a choice, a decision, you imply that you can control what God does, and that you have power over God: You cannot "force" God to accept you by making a certain decision. And the number of people who think you can (you are far from alone in your heresy) is staggering.

If you read the Book of Acts, people began to follow Christ within a matter of minutes or days from the time they were called. It was never within a matter of years, or over a lifetime. That's stretching the grace of God too far.

Of course they BEGAN to follow Christ right away, the moment they were first called. The question isn't when they BEGAN to follow Christ. The question is when that process was complete. You (and anyone else who thinks that salvation is something you can do for yourself) think that once you make that decision, it's over. You're saved, and there's nothing else to do.

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. I think you all realize that it's not true, but you've heard the heresy for so long you're confused.

The question isn't when do you START to follow Jesus. The question is, when are you DONE following Jesus. And THAT is what takes a lifetime. It doesn't really matter when you start. You can start when you're 2 months old, or when you're 13, or 75. God doesn't care when you start. God only cares THAT you start, and that you continue until your last day. THAT is what salvation is.

I don't mean to diminish the importance of Baptism. Baptism is absolutely essential, and a glorious ritual God has given to us, as an outward sign to show the works that He has already done.

It is being Born Again, with every connotation and image that "birth" has. It's not something you do for yourself, it's something that happens to you. Your life in Christ BEGINS on that day, and continues every day there after. What is important about that day is what you do with it, for the rest of your life.

When I celebrate my birthday, I don't say, "Wahoo, I was born 44 years ago, isn't that great." I say, "Wow, I've LIVED for 44 years. Look at all that has happened in my life."

I was baptized as a 2 month old baby. However, I never say that I was saved at the age of 2 months.

Do you say "I was saved at the age of 7" or whatever age you happened to be when you supposedly made that one-time decision?

Or, do you say, "I've been saved since I was...."

Because if it's the first, if you really think it's a one-time thing and then it's over, then you're no longer saved.

If it's the second, then you're finally getting it.

I was baptized when I was 2 months old. That is the date I was dedicated to God. I was saved 2,000 years ago, when Jesus died on the cross for my sins. I follow Jesus every day of my life, or at least I try to, I pray for help to do so, and pray for forgiveness when I fail.

THAT is what it means to be a Christian.

 

[JaumeJ]

I think the text of the Word is public domain.

 

[onlinebuddy]

TheGrungeDiva,
I know that you have spoken your mind, and that's fine with me. I am here to first listen. I think the aim of this discussion is to come to a common point of agreement in Christ, and you will agree to this.

If we disagree, it is better to part and leave space for God to judge. So calling one another heretics does will not help. You indirectly called me a heretic, and that does not bother me.

Also, I do not often use the word "born again." I have used it more frequently on this thread because I felt that you have categorized people who use that word in a repugnant manner. That's why I reminded you that our Lord himself used that word.

You have written in a previous post that you do not quote Bible versus because it "violates copyright laws". Believe me; this is the first time in my life that I have heard this reason.Yes, this is the first time that I have been on a forum such as this. Maybe I do not understand, and would like to learn from you how I have violated someone's copyright by mentioning a Bible chapter and verse in my post. Or how have I violated someone's copyright by quoting a verse in one of my posts?

Regards

 

[onlinebuddy]

I think the text of the Word is public domain.

Or maybe to make it more fair we can mention "KJV", "ASV", "NIV", etc besides the quoted verse, I don't know...

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

If we disagree, it is better to part and leave space for God to judge. So calling one another heretics does will not help. You indirectly called me a heretic, and that does not bother me.

You have a good point. I do believe that the doctrine you hold is heretical, but I can also put that aside and agree to disagree. Thank you for reminding me of that.

And thank you also for your gentle tone and kindness. It is rare on these boards, and so refreshing!

I felt that you have categorized people who use that word in a repugnant manner.

Not at all. As I said, I think the phrase "born again" is actually quite appropriate for what happens: it's very much like birth. My problem is not the phrase itself, nor with eople who use it, but with people who misuse it.

You have written in a previous post that you do not quote Bible versus because it "violates copyright laws".

Again, you misunderstood me.

Quoting the entire Bible in certain translations is a violation of copyright laws. (KJV would be in the public domain, so one could quote it verbatim from Genesis to Revelation.) Many translations allow for verses to be quoted (NIV for example), although there are some versions where even that is a violation of copyright law, unless you include the full information in a footnote (NRSV is an example).

I was talking about quoting the entire book, from Genesis to Revelation. THAT is what violates copyright law, as well as practicality. My point was that it's not just one verse that supports this doctrine -- it's all of Scripture, taken as a whole.

Sorry if I was not clear.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Or maybe to make it more fair we can mention "KJV", "ASV", "NIV", etc besides the quoted verse, I don't know...

Many versions have allowed a "waive" of standard copyright laws, and allow quoting their translations without proper footnotes. NRSV, however, still expects anyone who quotes their version in writing to use proper footnotes, which includes the full publication information. That is why you rarely see the NRSV in an online searchable bible.

 

[DeborahLight]

When they can say the name of Jesus.

When is a child old enough to follow Jesus? (This question is from one of my previous posts)

Does the Bible (especially the New Testament) say anything about this topic?
OT passages will also be fine.

I would appreciate opinions that are supported by Bible verses, if possible. I am asking for Bible verses because I would like to keep this as OBJECTIVE as possible. In this way, I would know that it is God's word and not man's opinion.
Thanks in advance.

 

[onlinebuddy]

You have a good point. I do believe that the doctrine you hold is heretical, but I can also put that aside and agree to disagree. Thank you for reminding me of that.

And thank you also for your gentle tone and kindness. It is rare on these boards, and so refreshing!


Not at all. As I said, I think the phrase "born again" is actually quite appropriate for what happens: it's very much like birth. My problem is not the phrase itself, nor with eople who use it, but with people who misuse it.


Again, you misunderstood me.

Quoting the entire Bible in certain translations is a violation of copyright laws. (KJV would be in the public domain, so one could quote it verbatim from Genesis to Revelation.) Many translations allow for verses to be quoted (NIV for example), although there are some versions where even that is a violation of copyright law, unless you include the full information in a footnote (NRSV is an example).

I was talking about quoting the entire book, from Genesis to Revelation. THAT is what violates copyright law, as well as practicality. My point was that it's not just one verse that supports this doctrine -- it's all of Scripture, taken as a whole.

Sorry if I was not clear.

Firstly, sorry if I read you wrong.

Talking about doctrine, I guess I haven't been able to express my beliefs in their entirety. Whatever little I have expressed has been taken to be heretical as it differs from what the majority of people believe. However, it is in agreement with the scriptures. I hope you will understand someday.

Thanks for the info on the copyright laws. I had never thought about this before. I guess I'll use the KJV more since it is public domain. Are there limits for quoting from the NIV (with attributes)? I'm sure there are limits when you are writing a book, but what about quoting on a forum?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Whatever little I have expressed has been taken to be heretical as it differs from what the majority of people believe. However, it is in agreement with the scriptures. I hope you will understand someday.

Then I am sorry for misunderstanding you. I, too, don't really care what "the majority" believe. God doesn't grade on a curve. I am only interested in truth. And if you and I agree that Scripture is truth, then we are on the same page.

Thanks for the info on the copyright laws. I had never thought about this before. I guess I'll use the KJV more since it is public domain. Are there limits for quoting from the NIV (with attributes)? I'm sure there are limits when you are writing a book, but what about quoting on a forum?

If you're only quoting a few verses, you can quote the NIV. The publishers have kind of taken the stance that they'd rather people use their translation, even if they don't get "credit," as it were. A lot of other versions are like that, too. As long as it's just a few verses, you're fine. You don't even have to give the proper footnotes for NIV, from what I understand.

I believe NRSV allows you to quote as long as you reference them properly. That may have changed, or I may have misunderstood the rules the last time I looked them up. But I do know that it's almost impossible to find an "online" version of the NRSV, and I'm guessing that's why.

 

[Photoss]

As for legal matters, the King James Version is public domain and can be quoted and printed freely (though it cannot be printed freely in Great Britain.) All the other major versions can 'legally' be quoted in any sort of document only if you mention the version afterwards (NIV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV, NEB, REB, HCSB, NLT, etc.).

However, since this is the internet, and we are not 'printing' anything, adding the version you are using is mostly just a common courtesy.

Each version has it's own in-depth 'rule' on the subject.
The NIV, for example:

The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.
When the NIV is quoted in works that exercise the above fair use clause, notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page or opening screen of the work (whichever is appropriate) as follows:
THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

As for legal matters.....

Thank you for enlightening us all!

 

[RickShafer]

The question should be, 'when does a child reach the age of accountability'.
Jesus said to suffer the little ones.
I, for one think there is nothing closer to the creators heart than a child.
Every new born thing, as soon as it's born, has that starry light of the
eternal Spirit gleaming through it's eyes.
Its almost like a signature that God just breathed on them.
And mankind being created in the image of God;
I have to agree with that country song, - 'the closest thing to heaven is a child'.

 

[onlinebuddy]

Then I am sorry for misunderstanding you. I, too, don't really care what "the majority" believe. God doesn't grade on a curve. I am only interested in truth. And if you and I agree that Scripture is truth, then we are on the same page.


If you're only quoting a few verses, you can quote the NIV. The publishers have kind of taken the stance that they'd rather people use their translation, even if they don't get "credit," as it were. A lot of other versions are like that, too. As long as it's just a few verses, you're fine. You don't even have to give the proper footnotes for NIV, from what I understand.

I believe NRSV allows you to quote as long as you reference them properly. That may have changed, or I may have misunderstood the rules the last time I looked them up. But I do know that it's almost impossible to find an "online" version of the NRSV, and I'm guessing that's why.

Thanks TGD, That was helpful.

I do wish to discuss my initial question a bit more. I will post as and when I have the time.

 

[onlinebuddy]

As for legal matters, the King James Version is public domain and can be quoted and printed freely (though it cannot be printed freely in Great Britain.) All the other major versions can 'legally' be quoted in any sort of document only if you mention the version afterwards (NIV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV, NEB, REB, HCSB, NLT, etc.).

However, since this is the internet, and we are not 'printing' anything, adding the version you are using is mostly just a common courtesy.

Each version has it's own in-depth 'rule' on the subject.
The NIV, for example:

The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.
When the NIV is quoted in works that exercise the above fair use clause, notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page or opening screen of the work (whichever is appropriate) as follows:
THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Thanks for the info.

Just a clarification:

All the other major versions can 'legally' be quoted in any sort of document only if you mention the version afterwards (NIV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV, NEB, REB, HCSB, NLT, etc.).

So, in your opinion, I can quote from the a/m versions of the Bible as long as I mention the version(NIV, etc), and I am not violating any copyright, and it amounts to fair use.

However, the NIV the fair use clause says that I must mention the entire line: THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Now, must I just mention just the initials "NIV" or the entire line when I'm quoting on this forum?

 

[onlinebuddy]

The question should be, 'when does a child reach the age of accountability'.
Jesus said to suffer the little ones.
I, for one think there is nothing closer to the creators heart than a child.
Every new born thing, as soon as it's born, has that starry light of the
eternal Spirit gleaming through it's eyes.
Its almost like a signature that God just breathed on them.
And mankind being created in the image of God;
I have to agree with that country song, - 'the closest thing to heaven is a child'.

RickShafer,
Thanks for your comment and your beautiful description of how we see the Creator in a child.

You have reworded my question, and it does make sense. Now, do you believe that a child reaches the age of accountablilty? If yes, what is your approximation of that age.