A Question of Accountability and Baptism
Jeff Faull responds to John Mark Hicks’s questions about children moving from safe, to lost, to saved. Faull considers the challenge of discerning accountability, the pastoral complexity of children’s baptism, and the need to teach the gospel faithfully while trusting God’s perfect knowledge.
- Faull argues that accountability is not tied to a simple age but to a child’s understanding of sin, God’s law, and eternal consequence.
- He cautions against both pressuring children into premature baptism and minimizing the biblical purposes of baptism.
- He urges Christian parents and leaders to proceed carefully, teach truth responsibly, and trust God with individual situations.
This article is a response to John Mark Hicks’s “Safe, to Lost, to Saved?”
By Jeff Faull
John Mark Hicks’s thought-provoking article in this week’s “Reflections” column leads me to sympathize with him about the ambiguity that appears to exist in regard to the process of our children coming to Christ and the timing of their baptisms. His line of reasoning questions our historically accepted assertions about the entrance of children into the kingdom of God. He questions “the theological underpinnings of the notion that our children move from safe to lost to saved (once baptized).”
I respect and admire brother Hicks, but I must question his questions. I realize the line of demarcation is not always so easily identified with kids raised in the church. Children come into this world as innocent beings covered by God’s perfect grace. And unless they experience a premature death, they all eventually become sinners in need of salvation. How do we respond to this truth?
Like any conscientious Christian parent, this is an issue I have personally struggled with. As a Christian leader for 25 years and as a father of three precious children, I have observed numerous scenarios and situations, but there are several common factors that consistently emerge.
A Question of Accountability
Even the most casual students of Scripture have pondered some sort of “age of accountability” concept. Is there a specific age or life milestone where God begins to hold individuals responsible for their choices and actions?
Some refer to an Old Testament standard. The promised land entry cutoff was at age 20. All those 21 and older were forbidden to enter the promised land after they protested in fear at the thought of crossing the Jordan. They all died before Joshua led the younger generation into the land about 40 years later.
Another common approach is to consider the Jewish traditions of boys entering manhood at 12 to 13 years of age.
There may be some point of reference value in these considerations, but they generally fail to take into account the differing rates of maturity and development in children. No room is left for individual consideration. Besides, we have no sure basis for determining which age example is appropriate. The “age of accountability” question seems to present a continually moving target.
I like Jack Cottrell’s suggestion that Romans 7:9 presents a good biblical description of the “age of accountability”: “I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died” (New American Standard Bible).
According to Cottrell, accountability comes when a child can “connect the law to God and connect disobedience with eternal penalty.” He concedes that discerning when that occurs is not always easy and requires careful consideration.1
Taking It Personal
This is also difficult because it is an extremely personal issue. Most of us address difficult theological questions with more of an individual bias than we care to acknowledge. Emotional, anecdotal, and even theoretical questions are inserted into the equation. We allow Scripture and theology to be evaluated by our narrow slice of life, rather than by aligning our experience and feelings with the objective standards of God’s revealed truth. That is why so much biblical misinterpretation occurs. We subconsciously try to reconcile Scripture to our own emotional needs and situations.
If my unbaptized son dies in a car accident at age 16, it will understandably affect my conclusion in this discussion. If my spiritually precocious 8-year-old is miles ahead of her peers and pleads to be baptized, demonstrating a spiritual understanding beyond her years, her personal situation will influence my thinking. If I have witnessed numerous premature decisions prompted by overzealous adults, I will likely tend to resist early immersions.
Practically Speaking
Brother Hicks and others have suggested that a sense of inconsistency exists between what we say and what we do. We say that children are safe, but we sometimes rush them to the baptistery too early. I agree that to “pressure our children into baptism in order to soothe our own worries and fears about their salvation is misguided.” But premature baptism isn’t the only concern. We can also be guilty of pressuring them into early belief or early confession.
While we should be careful to make sure that children are ready, we also want to direct them to truth. And the truth is we are transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God’s dear Son. Our inconsistency and lack of comprehension does not change that reality.
While there may seem to be a blurry transition for children of the church, there is no other category set forth in Scripture. I don’t think the baptism of Jesus is an appropriate analogy. The stated purpose for our sinless Savior’s baptism is entirely different from the purpose of ours.
Proceed with Caution
I certainly do not question Hicks’s motives or credentials, but I fear his approach to this subject could have several unintended consequences and could inadvertently undermine several important practical realities.
First, it replaces the stated purposes of baptism found throughout the New Testament (to put on Christ, to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, to die to sin, to remit sins, to call on the name of the Lord, etc.). Thus, it becomes a slippery slope in an arena that is already too often marginalized.
Second, it could minimize the emphasis on child evangelism. If the often-quoted statistics are true—that 80 percent of believers come to Christ before age 18—we would do well to proceed with caution in this arena.
Finally it even runs the risk of not letting God be God. We must be content to teach children the gospel faithfully and responsibly, and let God sort out the particulars for each individual.
Yes, there are transitional moments that will always leave us with some unanswered questions. What about the people who were baptized with John’s baptism and had not yet responded to Christian baptism? Or the proverbial on the way to the baptistery question. I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all answer to these and other similar dilemmas. While that may leave us with an uncomfortable sense of ambiguity, it doesn’t mean that jeopardizing what we do know about grace or baptism is a desirable approach.
A friend told me that many years ago, Christian Standard published an article by Maxine Fream on this very subject. She concluded with a moving statement to this effect: “I am persuaded that God can take a child which he holds in one hand and place him in his other hand without dropping him in between.” I can certainly appreciate the sentiment and beauty of that picture. But I think this a more accurate statement: “I am persuaded that God can take a child that realizes he has wandered from God’s hand and safely place him back in the security of that same mighty hand.”
The Almighty has perfect knowledge and understanding of each individual and every situation. Children who are coming of age are accountable to him and to his revealed truth, and in discerning this important matter, so are we. I maintain that this is a question of accountability—theirs and ours.
1Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All (Joplin: College Press, 2002), 192.
Jeff Faull is senior minister with Mount Gilead Church in Mooresville, Indiana. He serves as one of CHRISTIAN STANDARD’s contributing editors.
