Covenant Promise Vs Unconditional Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mattbauer

Puritan Board Freshman
Well, my first thread so here goes nothing. A question i have been wondering about since I first began to study the Bible a year ago.

If it is an unconditional elect, [that is not based upon anything we do to merit the salvation that God has bestowed upon us (elect)] then how can there be a covenant promise to the children of regenerate parents? Would this not make that Child's salvation conditional upon the parent's faith and make it contingent to the prior regeneration of one if not both? If so how do we differ on the decree of God. Being supralapsarian i do not see a difference in the order of the decrees, So when were they elected to salvation then the parents without anything being forseen by God?

ANY input is much appreciated. I am not looking for a debate, i have no stance on this. Just looking for a little guidance! Grace and peace.
 
Would this not make that Child's salvation conditional upon the parent's faith and make it contingent to the prior regeneration of one if not both?
Click to expand...

Not at all.

God has chosen to call a great many of His elect through Godly familie.

Isa 59:21 "And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore."

Abraham was called to leave Ur, with his family.
 
So is the term unconditional election really accurate then or how should we view this in light of that scripture?
 
Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

God calls individuals (Paul), families(Noah, Abraham), cities (Ninevah), and nations.

It is His own sovereign pleasure. And there is no absolute formula for us to discern His ways. (cf. Esau)

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Saiph]
 
Hello Matt,
The O.T. promises to children need to be read in the light of Gal 3:7 etc., not to mention Luke 8:20-21; 12:51-53.

There is great blessing being born into a Christian home, but there is no promise to the physical children, but only to the spiritual (John 1:13; 3:6 ). See the thread on Isaiah 54.

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 
John 3:6. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'

Does that sound gnostic too?

Martin
 
No, because it is a theological statement concerning regeneration.
Spirit is capitalized for a reason. To make a dichotomy between material and spiritual out of the promise of God, the 5th commandment contains a physical promise, as well as a spiritual one does it not ?


Deu 4:7 For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him?
Deu 4:8 And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?
Deu 4:9 "Only take care, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things that your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. Make them known to your children and your children's children--
Deu 4:10 how on the day that you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, the LORD said to me, 'Gather the people to me, that I may let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children so.'
 
but there is no promise to the physical children, but only to the spiritual
Click to expand...

Look again at the quote above.

There IS a promise to both. That statement is in error.

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Saiph]
 
Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
Click to expand...

This promise for children seems to be a promise that extends to the next generation in general and not to every individual's child. If it was intended to be upon every individual's child we would have seen a line of succession that would have eventually made all nations completely full of worshippers of Christ.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
but there is no promise to the physical children, but only to the spiritual
Click to expand...

Look again at the quote above.

There IS a promise to both. That statement is in error.

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Saiph]
Click to expand...

I do not see how anyone, credo-baptist or paedo-baptist, could deny that there is no promise to the physical children per se, since not all physical children of believers are among the elect, and God's promises certainly do not fail.

To quote Herman Hoeksema, who is very much a paedo-baptist:

"It was not all Israel which was of Israel. They are not all children because they are called the seed of Abraham. No, the children of the flesh are not counted for the seed, but the children of the promise. The apostle therefore makes a distinction between the seed of the flesh and the seed of the promise. Not all are children of the promise. But the children of the promise have indeed very really received all the blessings of salvation . . . God does not promise salvation in Christ to every child of believers. No more than there is a general offer in the preaching to everyone who hears, no more is there such a general promise in God's covenant. This presentation must be totally rooted out. It lies wholly in the line of Pelagius and Arminius."
 
This promise for children seems to be a promise that extends to the next generation in general and not to every individual's child. If it was intended to be upon every individual's child we would have seen a line of succession that would have eventually made all nations completely full of worshippers of Christ.
Click to expand...

I am not saying it is categorically for ALL children of believers. (Jacob, Esau)

But, it is wrong to say that there is no promise to physical children of believers at all, only the spiritual ones. Which, by the verse in John are born from above not below. The promise IS to physical children.

And, the current apostasy among Christian families may be God's discipline. That is also scriptural.



Incidentally, John 3:6 is a good argument for creationism verses traducianism. But that is a different topic.
 
The Bible says:

6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "œIn Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Can it be any more clear? Physical seed means NOTHING. The children of promise receive the promises. The children of the FLESH "are not the children of God; but the children of promise are counted as the seed."

Phillip
 
Originally posted by Saiph
but there is no promise to the physical children, but only to the spiritual
Click to expand...

If that alone does not sound gnostic, I do not know what does.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound gnostic to me. It only sounds like it was worded poorly. Martin is not gnostic.
 
I never said the promise is exclusively physical.

You are only quoting verses that are referring to the error that those who were born of Abraham thought that alone was enough to saved them.

I never said Martin was gnostic, but that the idea was gnostic.

I believe when God says the word will not depart from my children or theirs, that I can have real hope that He will elect some of them.
 
My hope is that he will regenerate them all because I love them. But I see no guarantee of this in the passages you have sighted.

There is no guarantee of salvation according to the flesh except that God has chosen some to salvation from the foundation of the world. In this we agree.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
I never said the promise is exclusively physical.

You are only quoting verses that are referring to the error that those who were born of Abraham thought that alone was enough to saved them.

I never said Martin was gnostic, but that the idea was gnostic.

I believe when God says the word will not depart from my children or theirs, that I can have real hope that He will elect some of them.
Click to expand...

Mark, even granting that God in His sovereignty will often work in the context of families to bring in His elect, and that we can have a certain expectancy of our children being elect, I would still say that as regards the individual physical children, there is no "promise", properly speaking, as not all physical seed are elect, as you have granted. A promise of God never fails. The children of the promise are indeed another class entirely from the seed of the flesh, and all children of the promise are saved.
 
A promise of God never fails.
Click to expand...

Amen.

So, ALL the children of promise are saved. Which is another way of redundantly saying all God's elect are saved.

But who is the promise made to ? Believers and their seed.
So, in general, God calls His elect from godly families. This is not new teaching.

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
Click to expand...

Now, according to many of you arguing against "common grace", the grace here in the WCF can only be referring to salvation right ?

Argue one way or the other, but many threads on this board contradict each other.

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Saiph]
 
Originally posted by mattbauer
Well, my first thread so here goes nothing. A question i have been wondering about since I first began to study the Bible a year ago.

If it is an unconditional elect, [that is not based upon anything we do to merit the salvation that God has bestowed upon us (elect)] then how can there be a covenant promise to the children of regenerate parents? Would this not make that Child's salvation conditional upon the parent's faith and make it contingent to the prior regeneration of one if not both? If so how do we differ on the decree of God. Being supralapsarian i do not see a difference in the order of the decrees, So when were they elected to salvation then the parents without anything being forseen by God?

ANY input is much appreciated. I am not looking for a debate, i have no stance on this. Just looking for a little guidance! Grace and peace.
Click to expand...

I believe the order you laid out made a parents faith to be more important than the election of God. If God chose a person and separated them (as he did Abraham) and then promised to save all his children following him, it wouldn't be dependent upon any faith at all, albeit faith would proceed by the life giving promise. God is capable of accomplishing such.
After saying that let me encourage you to look into the Covenant of Redemption. It is a covenant made between the Father and the Son. The Father gave us who are redeemed to the Son from the foundation of the world. The Son has purchased all whom the Father gave to him. It is finished.
 
Originally posted by Saiph

But who is the promise made to ? Believers and their seed.
So, in general, God calls His elect from godly families. This is not new teaching.
Click to expand...

As stated above the Promise is to Spiritual and not Fleshly Isreal. God has and is taking the wild and grafting it in. I would say that more wild has been added the last 2000 years than those who are already in. Chrisitanity has come and gone in many nations. Look at Europe. Of Course it seems He leaves a remnant.

Is there not a difference between electing grace and that which is common grace.

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]
 
Originally posted by Saiph
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
Click to expand...

Now, according to many of you arguing against "common grace", the grace here in the WCF can only be referring to salvation right ?

Argue one way or the other, but many threads on this board contradict each other.

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Saiph]
Click to expand...

The WCF here is assuredly referring to saving grace, not to any supposed "common grace". But is it not stating clearly that this grace is promised "to such as that grace belongs unto" (rather than to all the physical seed or who receive Baptism)? I am not sure where you see a contradiction.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli
 
Everyone needs to look at the promise in the correct light. God did not make the statement and add a qualifier. It is direct and to the point:

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.

offspring! God did not elaborate on the statement. He did not direct the saints to disect the offspring. He did not command that we doubt until we see fruit. He did not command that we wait until baptism to hold fast the statement.

In regards to the Flood and Gods statement to Noah:

Gen 9:9 "Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you,
Gen 9:10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth.
Gen 9:11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."

The next time it rained, did Noah doubt God? If it rained torrentially for three days, did Noah say, "It's happening again"? What is Gods command? Faith?

Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Rom 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
Rom 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

Rom 14:23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Being faithful to Gods command does not dismantle Gods other decrees. It does not render us heretical. May God be true and every man a liar!

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Is there not a difference between electing grace and that which is common grace.
Click to expand...

Not according to those who posted in the thread I started regarding common grace. To them the term grace should only be used when referring to God's saving act.

Which is interesting when you look at the WCF:
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
Click to expand...

Saving grace offered, exhibited and conferred, we baptize our infants.
But it is only realized within them if they are elect.

What does the WCF mean in that clause above by "promised" ?
And why is it in the context of physical descendants regarding the sacrament of Baptism ?

Because, the promise is TO physical believers and their children.
 
offspring! God did not elaborate on the statement. He did not direct the saints to disect the offspring. He did not command that we doubt until we see fruit. He did not command that we wait until baptism to hold fast the statement.
Click to expand...

Scott, in his genius, has nailed, what I have been trying to say in my feeble attempts.

I believe this answers the young man's question who started the thread.

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Saiph]
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Everyone needs to look at the promise in the correct light. God did not make the statement and add a qualifier. It is direct and to the point:

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.

offspring! God did not elaborate on the statement. He did not direct the saints to disect the offspring. He did not command that we doubt until we see fruit. He did not command that we wait until baptism to hold fast the statement.
Click to expand...

While I am in agreement that God has promised to be our God and the God to succeeding generations I still don't see that baptism and circumcision are equated in scripture as I have stated in other threads concerning Colosians 2:11,12.
 
Hello Mark,
You wrote:-
But who is the promise made to ? Believers and their seed.
So, in general, God calls His elect from godly families. This is not new teaching.
Click to expand...
It's not new, but it is wrong. It was not even true in the Old Testament as Judah, Eli, Samuel, David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Josiah could tell you. Much less is it true in the N.T. 'For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion"' (Rom 9:15; cf. Exod 33:19 ).


Scott wrote:-
offspring! God did not elaborate on the statement. He did not direct the saints to dissect the offspring.
Click to expand...
Well, actually He did, unless The Lord Jesus Christ is not God, John the Baptist is a liar and Paul is not a saint!

John 8:39, 44. "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.......You are of your father, the devil.

Matt 3:9. "And do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

Gal 3:7. 'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.'

The Seed of Abraham is The Lord Jesus Christ, and those who are united to Him by faith (Gal 3:16, 29 ). Of course it is right and good and beneficial to teach one's children about the Lord (Deut 4:7-10 etc), but that didn't work for Samuel (1Sam 8:1-5 ). The most important thing we can do for our children is that which we do upon our knees. "We gave them life in the flesh; you, Lord, must give them life in the Spirit."

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Hello Mark,
You wrote:-
But who is the promise made to ? Believers and their seed.
So, in general, God calls His elect from godly families. This is not new teaching.
Click to expand...
It's not new, but it is wrong. It was not even true in the Old Testament as Judah, Eli, Samuel, David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Josiah could tell you. Much less is it true in the N.T. 'For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion"' (Rom 9:15; cf. Exod 33:19 ).
Click to expand...


Martin,

Are you saying that I have no hope in Christ having elected any of my children or the children of my fellow believers?


Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
Click to expand...

There is a Promise and children are included in it as much as those who are far off.


[Edited on 10-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kim G
  • Locked
Conditional vs. Unconditional Covenants
Replies
2
Views
8K
S. Spence
S. Spence
R
  • Locked
Unconditional Election trumps CT
Replies
8
Views
2K
Radar
R
timfost
  • Locked
covenant of grace, covenant of promise
Replies
14
Views
4K
MW
M
Reformed Covenanter
George Walker on the promises of the unconditional covenant of grace
Replies
0
Views
512
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Robert Traill: The new covenant is the unconditional covenant of grace
Replies
1
Views
564
brandonadams
brandonadams
Back
Top