that’s a really interesting dilemma and certainly one that I have often asked myself.
One answer i have heard is something along the lines of “a child isn’t responsible for their own behaviour and therefore isn’t under the law…their parents are”.
I think the answer above presents its own problems as it suggests that if a parent is responsible for a child under the law, then why can’t the parent interceed on behalf of the child under the law?
My dad says that some things we have to simply have faith in God and leave those dilemmas to Him to figure out. Our responsibility is to do our best to raise Godly children.
Circumcision was possible if the person fulfilled the conditions of the covenant. In the covenant between God and the tribes of Israel, the condition was belonging to the people of the covenant. Any child being born to the tribes of Israel fulfilled the condition and could be circumcised.
In the new covenant given through Jesus the same applies: any person fulfilling the conditions of the covenant can be baptised. The condition is that the person is willing to surrender to Jesus, follow him and confess this faith in front of witnesses.
This interpretation assumes that a child is not guilty and condemned because of the sins of his ancestors when the child is born. No need to worry about the salvation of a very small child because the child is not responsible for the sins of others (Ezekiel 18).
As the child grows, at some point he/she becomes responsible for his/her acts and needs repentance and forgiveness. As the growth is gradual, it is not self-evident when the child becomes fully responsible of his/her sins. I believe that our heavenly Father is a loving Father and so children are not condemned in a hard way, to eternal punishment. Older children, teenagers, can understand enough of the gospel to make their own decisions if they want to have a relationship with God or not.
This interpretation is quite different than that of RCC and the churches that have adopted the teaching of inherited doom and being born from above in the baptism. My understanding is that faith needs to come before baptism and that being born from above (John 3:5-7) does not happen in baptism.
There are different interpretations about the matter. What I wrote is just a description of how I understand the matter, written as an answer to your comment.
Depends on the group. Living in an environment where the child hears about Jesus is a priviledge. I hope that all children could have this priviledge but unfortunately, a large part of children do not hear about Jesus in a way that would make them understand what the good news about Jesus (gospel) is.
The same applies to adults, a large proportion of all humans live in societies or bubbles where they do not hear the gospel about Jesus in a way that they could understand it.
A child (person) does not have to understand all details of Christian faith to believe. Salvation is not tied to knowledge.
It seems that in the post-Christian western societies, youth are more open to the message about Jesus and willing to have a relationship with God. It is the current adults that are the prejudiced and partly hostile group towards the good news.
Edit:
A small anecdote about youth vs. adults and baptism:
In Finland, the majority of the population (>90%) used to belong to the national Lutheran church. For some decades, a growing number has left the Lutheran church and many of those who have stayed do not believe as the church is teaching. In some areas, less than half of children born to ‘Lutheran’ families are baptized as small children, mainly because their mothers have a negative attitude against the teachings of the church.
Now there has started a countermovement by youth. Many 15-year old children that have not been baptized as infants want to attend to confirmation camps and join the Lutheran church. One Lutheran priest told that when he is baptizing these 15-year old children, he performs the baptism as full immersion. In that way, almost all denominations can accept the baptism as the baptism that NT scriptures are describing.
The immediate issue with such statements is that they could equally well be made about Mohammed, Vishnu, Abraham, Krishna, Buddha, Osiris, Loviatar or any other religious figure, or even about Scientology, Platonism, Shinto or any other belief system.
That you write them about Jesus, but not about anyone or anything else, shows a lack of awareness or empathy towards other religions.
This is correct. Though I might add that any adult persons who chose to embrace Jewish lifestyle and became a Jew was also part of that covenant.
This is correct also. Though I might add that this covenant is between God and the Church (His chosen people).
This is also correct as how one can become part of God’s chosen people (the Church). However, we must not neglect those who are born from God’s chosen people (people who are already members of the Church) as they are also members of the new covenant.
Basically, there are 2 ways to become members of the covenant.
The Old Covenant :
1. You could choose to become a Jew by believing the Jewish God (Yahweh) and embracing the jewish lifestyle and became a Jew.
2. You were born as a Jew.
The New Covenant :
1. You could choose to become a Christ’s follower (a christian) by believing in Jesus as your Lord and Savior and become a member of the Church.
2. You were born as a member of the Church.
If we see that plan of God, then we will not have any dilemmas or problems with the salvation of our babies and our little children.
Or, given what Jesus had to say about children, a child has no need to surrender because he/she hasn’t had the time to harden his/her heart against God, in which case Baptism is valid and the Holy Spirit does all the things that Paul and Peter say that Baptism does.
I encountered a combined Lutheran-Episcopalian congregation that had a novel approach to confirmation classes: it wasn’t a particular age group, rather each child had to decide he/she was ready. A confirmation/catechism class could have people ranging in age from twelve to twenty!
I’ve met a lot of young folks who grew up in “non-denominational” churches who fit that bill; they could recite the “accept Jesus into your heart” spiel but had no understanding of even why God became man.
It seems to me that they are more open because they have seen so many idiots in their lives, from parents to politicians, that they can more easily separate the legalistic idiots from the source.
I did a paper on Luther and baptism, and it was interesting to discover that he recommended the procedure of the early church (to use as much water as was available) but in practice stuck with “pouring” so as not to be identified with the groups who stripped baptism of its meaning as per Paul. In Missouri I visited a Lutheran church that had installed a baptismal pool in the entry portion of the church after the ancient fashion: steps down, deep enough for full immersion, with places built in for four sponsors (I think that was where I learned the Lutheran and ancient view that derived having four sponsors from the incident in Mark where four friends bring a man to Jesus, where Mark says, “Seeing their faith, He said to the man, ‘Child, your sins are forgiven’.”).
Omg…the two covenants are the same with the exception that in the second it is God who promises to write His laws on the hearts and in the minds, God is the one making the oath…in the first, the people made an oath to follow laws written on tablets of stone.
Im sorry to be blunt here but its frustrating…Why cant people get this right by going and actually reading and comparing what the bible actually says about the two covenants instead of believing wives tales that arent biblical?
I support freedom of religion in the sense that all religions that do not form a violent threat to the society should have the right to tell about their beliefs. As a Christian believer, I am interested that the good news about Jesus spreads, not what other religions claim or teach.
Here, schoolchildren are much more open to hearing and discussing about religious beliefs than the teachers or parents. Some parents try to stop any ‘religious practices’ or telling about Jesus or personal religious beliefs in schools. The majority of schoolchildren disagree. Based on questionairies, they think that all should have the right to tell about their faith, even in schools. That includes all religions.
It may be that this openness among schoolchildren to tell and discuss about faith has increased because the number of Muslims in schools have increased. For Muslim believers, it is normal to speak about their faith and religious habits even in schools, and their cultural way to dress and behave is quaranteed to lead to questions and discussions. That has encouraged also Christian believers to be more open about their faith. Adults are forbidden to tell about their faith in schools but the schools cannot prevent the schoolchildren from telling about their faith.
Here is a point where there are disagreements about interpretation among denominations.
What is the church (‘body’) of Christ?
For example, RCC and eastern orthodox teach that it is basically their church (spiritual organization). RCC thinks that the true church is RCC. Orthodox are perhaps even more strict in their belief that the true church is the orthodox church. Salvation is largely tied to being a part in that (spiritual) organization.
In denominations that emphazise the need for a personal relationship with God for salvation, the true church is understood as the universal ‘body’ of believers. There is a need to have local churches but the membership in the true universal church comes through faith in Jesus as the personal Lord. Being an official member of a denomination or a local church organization does not quarantee that the person is part of the universal church of Christ or saved.
This difference in the interpretation leads to different conclusions about the need to baptize infants. If salvation is tied to being a member of ‘our church’, then baptizing the infants becomes logical. Baptism is the rite used to join new members to ‘our church’ and as the infants become members in ‘our church’, they become members in the Kingdom of God.
In RCC et al, there is also the belief that baptism of infants is necessary because the ‘inherited sin’ makes even the children eternally doomed. Baptism shifts these children from darkness and doom to church and salvation.
It should be noted that the orthodox do not support the idea of ‘inherited sin/doom’, so their justification for baptizing the infants is somewhat different.
If the interpretation about the universal church of Christ is different, baptizing the infants becomes unnecessary and misleading. Misleading because it may give a false feeling of security, the sense that I am saved because I was baptized as an infant and am a member in ‘our church’.
This interpretation also means that the baptisms of infants is seen as a rite where children are joined to the baptizing organization, not as the baptism described in the NT scriptures.
Whatever our interpretation is, it is good to understand why the interpretations and practices are so different among Christians.
The claim that “you were born as a member of the Church” may be logical if the interpretation about the church and salvation is particular, otherwise it becomes a misleading, false statement.
please note that I used the Church (capital letter C) meaning that the universal body of Christ regardless of denominations. I personally could care less about denomination as we all know that it is man made that made the division among the body of Christ.
Or perhaps you really do lack empathy towards other religions.
Do you hope that all children could have the privilege of living in an environment where they hear about Buddha?
It’s not a question of people having the right to tell others about their faith. People do have that right. Adults are not forbidden to tell about their faith in schools. They are only forbidden to force children to listen.
Do you think children should be forced to listen to “the good news about Jesus”? How about being forced to listen to praise of Mohammed?
I am a believer and my opinions reflect that. If I believe that Jesus is the door, the way, the truth and the life, it is natural that I believe that the other belief systems are at least partially wrong.
I believe that the good news about Jesus can offer a more truthful message than the alternatives and therefore, I am not concerned about a situation where people are exposed to the teachings of various belief systems. But why would I hope that children are exposed to all possible wrong belief systems? Those following the teachings of Buddha can hope that their teachings spread, for me it is enough that the teachings of Jesus and his apostles are told.
Maybe where you live. Here, the ‘no practicing of religion’ rules have sometimes been interpreted in a more tight way. Teachers are not allowed to tell about their faith to schoolchildren and visitors are not allowed to tell about their faith to schoolchildren in the schools, except perhaps in classes that are teaching the various religious beliefs in the world. Even concerts including religious themes are only allowed if the parents are informed in advance of the contents and there is a simultaneous alternative event for the children of the parents who wish to have no religious elements in the school.
A nationally wellknown gospel artist held a Passover concert in one school (no preaching, just Passover songs) and the school was condemned because all parents were not informed of the contents of the concert in sufficient detail in advance.
As an overreaction to that judgement, the principal of another school cancelled a barock concert with music from Georg Friedrich Händel on the basis that he did not have enough of time to inform about the contents of the music to all parents and arrange an alternative event for those who would not like to be exposed to the religious themes in the music - religious themes are very common in classical music.
Fortunately, that decision was judged to be an overreaction by the politicians and the Ministry of Education. Listening to classical music is not counted as practicing of religion although religious themes are common in such music.
Of course. But you should know that believers in those other belief systems think the same about yours, and that they have the same rights and aspirations that you do. It might even be their beliefs that are true, not yours.
It is arrogant to assume that you are correct, and everyone with different beliefs is wrong. Exposing children to many belief systems allows them to determine for themselves which is true. You would withhold them that opportunity.
No, where you live.
You are American, right? Or have I got that wrong?
How rules are interpreted is not necessarily what the rules are.
Most of the confusion over what the rules are is the result of deliberate misinformation by those who wish to overrule, change or ignore them.
Good. Parents should be informed if their children are to be subjected to religious events.
I note you didn’t answer my other question.
Do you think children should be forced to listen to “the good news about Jesus”? How about being forced to listen to praise of Mohammed?
First, although my grandpa was born in USA, I am not American. I live in Finland, northern Europe.
A small nation, maybe with some peculiar habits, but experiencing all the positive and negative features and trends of the modern western societies.
Second, how rules are officially interpreted is how you have to act here. One good or bad (depending on your viewpoint) side of the Finnish culture is that people obey laws, there is much less bending of rules than in most countries. If institutes, including schools, get some directions, that is how they act, ad punctum. If somebody does not stick to the rules, sooner or later that person is going to loose his or her position.
One detail to note is that the majority of schools in Finland are public, also the best ones. The public schools follow identical directions, given by the National board of education.
Third, I do not support coercion or attempts to somehow forced conversion. Voluntary participation is ok for me.
About the listening of Muslims: that may become a part of the societal experience. The birth rates are so low that this nation is economically dependent on immigration. A rather high percentage of immigrants are Muslim. A century ago, >97% of the nation was Christian. With increasing immigration and higher child counts in Muslim families, the proportion of Muslims is steadily increasing.
For some reason, the society is sensitive to criticizing Muslims/Islam, so there is a bit higher threshold to interfere with matters of religious significance to Muslims. Maybe it is because some Muslims are more prone to react in a violent way if their faith is offended - local Christians do not respond violently. For example, if somebody would mock Jesus (in Arabic, Isa ibn Maryam), it would be more probable that the Muslims would react to that violently than that the Christians would react. Anyhow, as the society tends to stick to rules, all religions have to adapt to the same national rules.
Is it a good or bad development that there are more Muslims in the country?
Depends from the viewpoint. Some politically influential groups have a very negative attitude towards the change that is happening in the society with immigration. On the other hand, Christians with a missiological identity are happy that they do not have to travel to partially closed Muslim cultures as the Muslims are coming now into their neighbourhood.
I admit I know a lot less about Finnish law etc, so retract some of my previous comments.
Then I don’t understand why you think there is a problem. Unless the children have asked the teacher about the teacher’s beliefs, talking about their faith in settings where children have compulsory attendance is coercion. Especially where it’s not relevant to the subject supposedly being taught.
I suspect you are right about Muslims reacting more violently than Christians to criticism of their religion. But IMO the response shouldn’t be to be more sensitive to Islam, it should be to push back hard against any violent response to criticism.
I don’t see it as a bad development unless the arriving Moslems try to enforce their religious views or laws on others, or commit crimes. I suspect that as in the UK most won’t, only a few militants.