John Calvin On Covenant Children

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

‎”As to the Apostle’s assigning here a peculiar privilege to the children of believers, this flows from the blessing of the covenant, by the intervention of which the curse of nature is removed; and those who were by nature unholy are consecrated to God by grace. Hence Paul argues, in his Epistle to the Romans, (Romans 11:16,) that the whole of Abraham’s posterity are holy, because God had made a covenant of life with him — If the root be holy, says he, then the branches are holy also. And God calls all that were descended from Israel his sons’ now that the partition is broken down, the same covenant of salvation that was entered into with the seed of Abraham is communicated to us. But if the children of believers are exempted from the common lot of mankind, so as to be set apart to the Lord, why should we keep them back from the sign? If the Lord admits them into the Church by his word, why should we refuse them the sign? In what respects the offspring of the pious are holy, while many of them become degenerate, you will find explained in the tenth and eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans; and I have handled this point there.”

— John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Cor 7:14

 

[MLCOPE2]

'Why?' indeed.

 

[Peairtach]

Whether they believe or not, and become "of the covenant" as well as "in the covenant", they are in the covenant for the rest of their lives, which is illustrated that they are never "rebaptised" unless there was something seriously wrong with their original baptism e.g. it wasn't Trinitarian.

Even in Hell, someone who has been "in the covenant" but not "of the covenant", but is now not "in the covenant", will be punished in the context of that he was once in the covenant and received certain covenantal privileges.

What about those children born to professing believers, but aren't baptised - e.g. Reformed Baptist children? Are they in any sense "in the covenant" and in the visible church?

What about those who maybe shouldn't have been baptised, because their parents or grand parents never showed any sign of grace?

 

[jogri17]

hmmm... and what does Calvin here mean by ''curse''? Is he saying that by virtual of being covenant Children: 1. if they refuse to profess faith but still want to attend church they ought to be considered Christians even if they live like pagans? 2. That they are not born with original sin?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

hmmm... and what does Calvin here mean by ''curse''? Is he saying that by virtual of being covenant Children: 1. if they refuse to profess faith but still want to attend church they ought to be considered Christians even if they live like pagans? 2. That they are not born with original sin?

You probably ought to read his Institutes if you assume either conclusion is what he intends to communicate. Notice that even in the brief excerpt Calvin notes:

In what respects the offspring of the pious are holy, while many of them become degenerate, you will find explained in the tenth and eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans; and I have handled this point there.

Calvin obviously means by "curse", original sin. He states that it is the "blessing of the Covenant" which removes this curse but he is speaking in sacramental language. Elsewhere he makes the distinction between sign and thing signified but it does not change the idea that children are holy in the sense of being set apart.

 

[Romans922]

Anyone have this?

In what respects the offspring of the pious are holy, while many of them become degenerate, you will find explained in the tenth and eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans; and I have handled this point there.”

 

[py3ak]

Anyone have this?

In what respects the offspring of the pious are holy, while many of them become degenerate, you will find explained in the tenth and eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans; and I have handled this point there.”

Commentary on Romans - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Peairtach]

Whether they believe or not, and become "of the covenant" as well as "in the covenant", they are in the covenant for the rest of their lives, which is illustrated that they are never "rebaptised" unless there was something seriously wrong with their original baptism e.g. it wasn't Trinitarian.

Even in Hell, someone who has been "in the covenant" but not "of the covenant", but is now not "in the covenant", will be punished in the context of that he was once in the covenant and received certain covenantal privileges.

What about those children born to professing believers, but aren't baptised - e.g. Reformed Baptist children? Are they in any sense "in the covenant" and in the visible church?

What about those who maybe shouldn't have been baptised, because their parents or grand parents never showed any sign of grace?

This subject would merit another thread since it's slightly off topic.

 

[Marrow Man]

And God calls all that were descended from Israel his sons’ now that the partition is broken down, the same covenant of salvation that was entered into with the seed of Abraham is communicated to us.

Is the punctuation (i.e., the apostrophe on "sons'") correct here? That is, is it supposed to be "sons" (plural) or "sons'" (plural possessive) or something else? It affects the way in which the sentence is read.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

My paperback copy (Calvin's NT Commentaries by Eerdmans) of 1 Corinthians 7:14 has "sons" but the CCEL online copy has "sons'".

So take your pick.

 

[Marrow Man]

My paperback copy (Calvin's NT Commentaries by Eerdmans) of 1 Corinthians 7:14 has "sons" but the CCEL online copy has "sons'".

So take your pick.

Oh, dear. Now you are trying to turn me into a textual critic!

We might have to move this thread if that happens.