What to presume of our children

Status
Not open for further replies.

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
I thought I would start this up again, as my studies of the issue have sprouted some more questions. I guess this is primarily for paedo's since the answer for the credo's is already obvious.

In past threads Matt, Scott, Kevin, and John have argued well for a form of presumptive regeneration. We presume that our children are regenerate until they prove otherwise based on the promises of God, originally given to Abraham, that God would be a God to our descendents as well as to us.

So I guess I would like to make an even finer distinction about this. We may presume that our children are regenerate but at the same time, we wouldn't excommunicate them as a child for their unrepentent sins would we? We would not do that unless they had made profession of faith and were full communicant members (and even that move for a professing child would be debatable I think). These children are treated differently before they make profession of faith. They are treated for judicial purposes the same as visiting unbelievers because they cannot be tried by a church court.

So are we really presuming that our children are regenerate and have eternal life when we practice our judicial proceedings in this way? Or do we presume that they are being prepared for it? Thornwell argued that our children are like hiers of an inheritance, which they do not recieve (at least publicly) until they make profession of faith. In other words, until we know that they possess the required condition of accessing the promises (faith) then we withold the full benefits of membership. To follow the analogy, they do not receive the inheritance (communicant membership) until they've grown up (profession of faith) and before profession they must be trained up or prepared to receive the inheritance.

So, what do you all think? Is this version of presumption different than what has been argued here by Matt or John?
 
Pat,
2 questions back at cha..........
1) What kind of unrepentant sins would a child commit that would be warranting excommunication?
2) Would an adult be excommunicated for the same sins?
 
[quote:952af98aa6][i:952af98aa6]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:952af98aa6]
Pat,
2 questions back at cha..........
1) What kind of unrepentant sins would a child commit that would be warranting excommunication?
2) Would an adult be excommunicated for the same sins? [/quote:952af98aa6]
Well, for arguments sake lets say stealing. The child refuses to obey his parents and the elders and heed their correction. And lets assume he knows it is wrong and that he is age 8.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by puritansailor]
 
sacraments and regeneration

I like your formulation of the issue of presumptive regeneration.

If God is an active participant in baptism; declaring and sealing the promice of the Gospel to the infant: then your type of presumptive regeneration would seem to follow.

If the sacrament of baptism is merely a sign or symbol of God' grace to believers and their seed, and their is no action of God in the sacrament other then the Word spoken in connection with it: then it would be hard to make a case for presumptive regeneration.

The urgency with which baptism is urged in connection with the preaching of the Gospel in Acts 22:16 and Acts 2:38 would seem to indicate that God is actively using Baptism as a means of grace to bring His people to Him.

In Romans 4:11 we find circumcision being called "a seal of the righteousness of the faith." What is said of circumcision would seam to also apply to baptism.
 
Patrick....

The reason that I believe an unrepentant child would not be put out of the assembly is because they are not yet federally responsible. I would have no qualms putting someone out of the Church who was no longer under their federal head. And just because they are excommunicated, does that mean, at some point, God may not move in them so that they would be restored?

In fact, the basic reason for Church censures is for the restoring of the brother.

I guarantee that a child living in my house would be severely punished for unrepentant sin. I would bring him to the elders of the Church if he persisted as well.

But, I would find this unlikely in a child that has been taught from birth. I would tend to think that most children would repent even if it took much coercion. This does not mean that further consequences may not come. If they are unrepentant at this stage, while in the house of their parents, then it will probably only get worse when they are out on their own.

But I would say that federally, they should not be censured with excommunication until they were ready to live on their own. That does not mean they should continue to take the Supper, though.

In Christ,

KC
 
So then Kevin, you would excommunicate a non-comminicant member? On what grounds? His unrepentant sin or his not making profession of faith? And if you excommunicate him, are you then declaring that his life until that point was ok?

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by puritansailor]
 
Patrick:
[quote:66f0212a41]So are we really presuming that our children are regenerate and have eternal life when we practice our judicial proceedings in this way? Or do we presume that they are being prepared for it?[/quote:66f0212a41]

The two basic things to remember are, first, that the children of believers are also in the covenant, and second, that the promises are not empty promises. There is no promise to regenerate every covenant child regardless of his personal life and faith. As you see in all the encouragements in the OT and in the NT, we all need to be strong and courageous in faith to do all that is commanded. This is not a legalistic faith; it is not that we need to obey to receive the blessings, but we need faith in God, that He will deliver to us His Word to instruct us in righteousness as we trust in Him and look to Him, through (the now revealed) Christ Jesus our Lord.

Even for the full grown believer, who has made a public profession of his faith, he is encouraged to be strong and courageous in abiding in the Word. As a child grows he must also grow in these graces. A parent is not excused from any duties because of the covenant. Rather he is even more responsible to his child, to teach and nurture both knowledge and trust in the Word. Many a nation is without the gospel because parents had rejected it.

So a presumption that leads to complacency is not at all the presumption that is a direct observance of the promises. God promises His continuing grace, and He does this so that we may rest in His promises, which is a call to presume upon them. It is a command to do so. Instead of telling the children to go to their parents, as the disciples tried to do, Jesus says, "Do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God" (to paraphrase somewhat. ) Resting on His promises is not a call to do nothing, but a call to work in the salvation given to us. We have a duty to our children in obedience to God.

It is easy enough even for us to think that we are saved in spite of our sins. It is true, we are, and so are the children who are saved. But we are called, both we and our children, to live a life of faith, not faithlessness. Living like a Christian should, in faith unto love and obedience, is far different than just living in the church, reciting all the words and lines that are required. All those catechism lessons mean nothing if an awareness of God's presence is left out of the life of the parent.

The end of the law is this, that we love God and our neighbour. Love fulfills the law. That is what we are called to. And the only answer we have to that is faith, not legal obedience. Through faith we learn and grow in the graces needed to fill up the law. But what kind of love have we engendered in ourselves if we are complacent to our children in regard to the wonderful message of salvation that is bequeathed to them through the covenant? Do we think it will come to them automatically, without the faith that we have received? That faith is the very focus of the promises; why would anyone think that it is not necessary, and so neglect it? That is hardly the love which a courageous faith builds up.

So a presumption that leads to a lax love of the child, or a mere human or self-oriented love of a child, thinking that he will inherit eternal life through his parents is a strange and foreign presumption. All that is presumed is the promises of God, His faithfulness to accomplish all that He (as the old phraseology has it ) "vouchsafed to us in His Word."
 
[quote:810e00b68f]
So then Kevin, you would excommunicate a non-comminicant member?
[/quote:810e00b68f]

Isn't that the very definition of excommunication?

How can you excommunicate someone who is not taking communion ? ?


[quote:810e00b68f]
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH

Chapter XXX. Of Church Censures

I. The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate .

II. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.


III. Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethres, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.


IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; [b:810e00b68f]suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person [/b:810e00b68f].


[/quote:810e00b68f]




[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Wintermute]
 
[i:367212e188]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:367212e188]
Patrick:
[quote:367212e188]So a presumption that leads to a lax love of the child, or a mere human or self-oriented love of a child, thinking that he will inherit eternal life through his parents is a strange and foreign presumption. All that is presumed is the promises of God, His faithfulness to accomplish all that He (as the old phraseology has it ) "vouchsafed to us in His Word." [/quote:367212e188]
Well, John I am not arguing that our presumption leads to a lax of love or laziness in teaching our children the way of salvation or their covenant obligations to God. We are all agreed on that. I just see a possible inconsistency in presuming them regenerate and the way they may be treated by the church judiciously. Are we actually presuming they have the reality of the promise? Or are we presuming that they [i:367212e188]will[/i:367212e188] have the promise and are being trained up for it? We all agree that they must not partake of the Lord's Supper until they make profession of faith. So, practically speaking we are making a two-tiered church membership, baptized members and communicant members. I'm not saying this is wrong, because the reformed churches have done this since the Reformation in one form or another. I just think we need to clarify what exactly we are presuming about the non-professing members. We may consider them heirs of the promise, but does that mean we presume they have apprehended the promise? Or is that presumption only to be made once they make profession of faith?
 
[quote:1cfef7cfd8][i:1cfef7cfd8]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:1cfef7cfd8]
Isn't that the very definition of excommunication?

How can you excommunicate someone who is not taking communion ? ?
[/quote:1cfef7cfd8]
That's the dilemma I'm talking about. We call our children members of the church. Yet they are not communicate members. they do not partake of the full blessings of the church, or what Thornwell called the "inner sanctuary." So if you excommunicate them, what are they really losing? And what were we presuming of these non-professing members in the first place?
 
excommunication

Scripture says more about excommunication then suspending them from the Lord's Table.

It says we are to regard them as sinners and tax collectors.
We are not to break bread with them.

Does that apply to covenant children who have not made profession of faith? I think the answer is yes. Such an act of the kirk might force the covenant child to think about his walk and life.
 
Patrick...

[quote:fd577536e9][i:fd577536e9]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:fd577536e9]
So then Kevin, you would excommunicate a non-comminicant member? On what grounds? His unrepentant sin or his not making profession of faith? And if you excommunicate him, are you then declaring that his life until that point was ok?

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by puritansailor] [/quote:fd577536e9]

No, excommunication would be based upon the fact that he had, at once, made a confession. He would not be taking communion unless he had. He would not have it taken away, unless he were a communicant member.

But, I find it hard to believe that a child or adolescent would not be admitted to the table while they can communicate the articles of faith. Essentially, because our church just went through this with the OPC, all of our children around 10 or older, could make a credible profession of faith. This does not mean that they are regenerate. It means that they have been taught the articles of faith and based upon their ability to expound on those, they have all been admitted to the table.

If they committed a sin for which they were unrepentant, they would be disallowed to take communion. If this attitude of unrepentance continued until after they were out of the house, they would be excommunicated.

In our small assembly, this is fairly easy to ascertain.

But you are correct, we would not excommunicate a non-communicant member. We would suggest to them that they fellowship elsewhere.

In Christ,

KC
 
[quote:cb5666b1bf]
If they committed a sin for which they were unrepentant, they would be disallowed to take communion. If this attitude of unrepentance continued until after they were out of the house, they would be excommunicated.
[/quote:cb5666b1bf]

Agreed.

Covenant keeping is promise believing.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Wintermute]
 
[quote:6bd317c7e4][i:6bd317c7e4]Originally posted by Puritansailor[/i:6bd317c7e4]
That's the dilemma I'm talking about. We call our children members of the church. Yet they are not communicate members. they do not partake of the full blessings of the church, or what Thornwell called the "inner sanctuary." So if you excommunicate them, what are they really losing? And what were we presuming of these non-professing members in the first place?[/quote:6bd317c7e4]

Ding! Ding! Ding! That's the million dollar question!
 
For the record that is one of the things that makes me embrace paedocommunion. Even though it goes against the stalwart giants of church history.
 
[quote:206672b040]
So then Kevin, you would excommunicate a non-comminicant member?
[/quote:206672b040]

I do not think this necessarily follows.

Who does the child first pay respect to - the church or his parents?

It woudl be his parents. His parents are covenatally responsible for his actions. He should be punished at home.
If the child persists in his disobediecne, at age 8, and has made no profession of faith, why would it be wrong, as a judgment of the father, to have the church take disciplinary measures against the child even though the child is young?

PRACTICALLY - you would really have to be a disgruntled kids to stand up against the pastor. Let's think of this in a real life situation.

What would you feel like as an 8 year old kid being brought to the session to be disciplined byt he pastor and elders of the church after your parents have tanned your behind continually? Are we really saying that the child is THAT disobedient is brought up in a Christian home under covneant repsoibilities. I understand children come out of the womb speaking lies, but are we really banming on them continuing to steal even after they have been disciplined, and even after they have been told that the pastor is angry with them and they will have to speak with the elders of the church? I think that alone woudl be enough to frightend them into submission, even if it was phoney repentance.

You do have the parents right over the child, even at an older age, for discipline -

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

How then does this carry over to any extent to the 8 year old?
 
[quote:d12d28cb03][i:d12d28cb03]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:d12d28cb03]
[quote:d12d28cb03]
So then Kevin, you would excommunicate a non-comminicant member?
[/quote:d12d28cb03]
How then does this carry over to any extent to the 8 year old? [/quote:d12d28cb03]
I guess that is the point. We don't carry this over to the 8 year old normally. They are considered under their parents. But if we are presuming these children to be regenerate, then it would seem to me that we shouldn't be withholding them from the full fellowship of the church as communicate members. But if Thornwell, is correct, and we are presuming that our children are heirs of the promise, not necessarily posessing it yet, then it seems justified to keep them from full membership until they make profession of faith and then we can presume upon that evidence that they have in fact taken hold of the promises and are entitled to communicate membership. Am I making sense?
 
You are making "Thornwallian" sense. :D


[quote:59ddf212a2]
But if we are presuming these children to be regenerate, then it would seem to me that we shouldn't be withholding them from the full fellowship of the church as communicate members.
[/quote:59ddf212a2]

No, that does not follow - why? 1 Cor. 11 (and Exodus 12) give us directives about who can partake. So we have directions on how a child may or may not partake of the Lord's Supper. That does not make them not members. One does not have to partkae of the Lord's Supper in order to be a member of the church. The Lord's Supper is a priveledge of membership so long as the directives for partaking are met (which would toss out Paedocommunion on both the Lord's Supper front and the Passover front as Exodus 12 demonstrates - a discussion for another time.)


[quote:59ddf212a2]
But if Thornwell, is correct, and we are presuming that our children are heirs of the promise, not necessarily posessing it yet, then it seems justified to keep them from full membership until they make profession of faith and then we can presume upon that evidence that they have in fact taken hold of the promises and are entitled to communicate membership. Am I making sense?
[/quote:59ddf212a2]

If Thornwall is right, then he should not, at any point, offer his children ANY of the priveledges of the regenerate (which woudl include baptism and make him an inconsistent baptist - which is EXACTLY what he was on this issue.)

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by webmaster]
 
[quote:9a81e45c27][i:9a81e45c27]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:9a81e45c27]
If Thornwall is right, then he should not, at any point, offer his children ANY of the priveledges of the regenerate (which woudl include baptism and make him an inconsistent baptist - which is EXACTLY what he was on this issue.)
[/quote:9a81e45c27]
I wouldn't go so far as to call him a baptist. In the particular writing that he sets forth his ideas, he quotes men from the Scottish and Dutch circles to support his claim. And I think his emphasis is not that these children can't be regenerate, but the church treats them unregenerate until they make profession of faith when it comes to their access to membership benefits (Lord's Supper, voting, the privilege of baptizing their own children, etc.).

So perhaps you are presuming they are regenerate in one way, but when it comes to practical ecclesiology we presume them unregenerate until they make profession of faith. This is the common practice of teh reformed churches. Isn't this inconsistent?
 
Pat,
I agree that this is an inconsistancy. That is why I cringe when I hear of these communicant/confirmation classes. I have said that by doing this, it would seem as if one contradicts the faith they said they believed in during infant baptism. Also, one might think this borders upon semi-Pelagianism.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
[quote:fffffe98d0]
I agree that this is an inconsistancy. That is why I cringe when I hear of these communicant/confirmation classes. I have said that by doing this, it would seem as if one contradicts the faith they said they believed in during infant baptism. Also, one might think this borders upon semi-Pelagianism.
[/quote:fffffe98d0]

There is no border at all as I see it.
It IS semi-pelagianism.
 
Scott and Mark:
You lost me here. Can you expand on this a bit so that I know what you're referring to?

Patrick:
I know that your intention was to the effect of the responsibility of a child when it comes to accountability for sins. That was why I went on the way I did.

I think Matt is right in pointing out that you are talking about something very unusual. But Paul brings in a 15 year old who is guilty of treason. I think that is a good illustration.

Just as the judicial system would take into account the age of the perpetrator of the crime in relegating a just punishment, so also the Church should be even more sensitive to that. If a child is that incorrigible, then there must be some bigger problem somewhere else. Simply punishing the child for reacting to a poor upbringing, or to a very bad personal or social environment, is not justice. Nor is it very pastoral. Even the extreme of excommunication is a pastoral activity, not a judicial one per se. To ignore the soul's real need is not acting on his behalf. A judicial act in the church is meant to act on his behalf, not against it. How much more a pastoral act of admonishment?

That is why it is necessary first to establish just what it means for a child to be a member in the covenant. And that requires a good understanding of a confessing member's membership. It is first of all positive. And even in it's negative aspects, it is meant to be positive.

Let us not force issues based on extremely questionable cases. In each such situation we would need to address the person in his true need. But even so, it could not be done without an express understanding of the soul's place in the covenant.


I also agree with Matt that this question rather demonstrates for a need to be careful not to allow members into full communion at too young an age and at too soon an understanding of the responsibilities in the covenant, and especially not to have non-professing children partake of the Lord's Supper. In such a case it would be good to ask the kind of question that you ask: what if a child becomes incorrigible after he has received communion? What if he refuses the faith later when he becomes a man? The question is not centred on the child, but on the responsibilities of the elders in properly guarding the souls of the congregation as well as guarding the table.

And this is the case in your scenario as well.
 
John,
Here is Patrick post I was responding to:

"So perhaps you are presuming they are regenerate in one way, but when it comes to practical ecclesiology we presume them unregenerate until they make profession of faith. This is the common practice of teh reformed churches. Isn't this inconsistent?"

Unless I misunderstood Patrick he was making mention of an inconsistancy in the thinking of those whom embrace a PR. I remarked that indeed I agree that it is inconsistant to stand upon Gods promise at the baptism and when the child reaches 12 or so, challenge our faith by initiating a process (communicants class) that in essence contradicts that which we have previously claimed.
 
Scott:
Thanks for clarifying. I agree with that. It seems to me that the promises don't cease to be valid when classes start for the education in the faith. Nor do they cease to be valid when one does profession of faith. Nor do they cease to be valid upon death. Nor do they necessarily cease if one is excommunicated. The promises are for eternity, because the kingdom is ours already if we are truly in Christ. It is that hope, that expectation, which fills the promise with content and purpose for us. It is for these that the action of discipline is taken.
 
[quote:eb87f329a7][i:eb87f329a7]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:eb87f329a7]
Scott:
Thanks for clarifying. I agree with that. It seems to me that the promises don't cease to be valid when classes start for the education in the faith. Nor do they cease to be valid when one does profession of faith. Nor do they cease to be valid upon death. Nor do they necessarily cease if one is excommunicated. The promises are for eternity, because the kingdom is ours already if we are truly in Christ. It is that hope, that expectation, which fills the promise with content and purpose for us. It is for these that the action of discipline is taken. [/quote:eb87f329a7]

John,
In that case, why have the class then?
 
Scott:
[quote:52918b958b]John,
In that case, why have the class then? [/quote:52918b958b]
It is precisely because we believe our children to be in the covenant that we have the classes. We have an incumbency to teach them the way of faith, to be strong and courageous in abiding in the Word of our Lord, to be instructed by it, to face every obstacle with faith and a determined steadfastness in the Word. That doesn't come with thecomplacent efforts of the parents, but with constant guidance, the same as the parent subjects himself to.

Rather than making the classes needless, PR necessitates them.
 
[quote:9d659b456e][i:9d659b456e]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:9d659b456e]
Scott:
[quote:9d659b456e]John,
In that case, why have the class then? [/quote:9d659b456e]
It is precisely because we believe our children to be in the covenant that we have the classes. We have an incumbency to teach them the way of faith, to be strong and courageous in abiding in the Word of our Lord, to be instructed by it, to face every obstacle with faith and a determined steadfastness in the Word. That doesn't come with thecomplacent efforts of the parents, but with constant guidance, the same as the parent subjects himself to.

Rather than making the classes needless, PR necessitates them. [/quote:9d659b456e]

John,
But as parents, aren't we to do that at home. Why do I need a class at my church to do that which God has commanded that I do at home.

Some have said that it is important to establish whether or not the child is able to discern the Lords body for the supper. I disagree here also. It is also my job to do this. God forbid I stumble my child and have her partake prior to her discening and am fitted for a millstone tie!

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Scott:
Why does it have to be either/or? The parents have a responsibility to not only teach basic precepts, but even more so the practice of it in daily life by example and teaching. So it is the duty of the parent in the first place.

The teaching that a child receives in the home is to be encouraged at church. But it is also taught in a more systematic way, and more thouroughly, and more authoritatively at church. So it is the duty of the church as well.

I can't see it being the responsibility of the one without the other.

If followed through carefully, I believe, this results in a more careful approach to the table of the Lord, in that we don't want to be open to abuse of the table by our own children should they become delinquent in faith when they reach physcal maturity and therefore independence of life and responsibility.

But I think I have to be careful here for two reasons: first, some churches are more inclined to being open about the Lord's Supper than others in who they allow to partake (e.g. visitors and/or non-members, etc. ) The more closed the communion is the more they will also guard against the abuse in their own midst, one would think. But that is not always the case; sometimes its quite opposite. It is a question that depends on the region, the fellowship between nearby churches, and a host of other things.

Second, I don't want to assume that those who include children are not being careful in that way, in that I would suggest a carelessness in allowing it. I really don't know the people of whom I am talking about, so how can I say anything against their character. This question depends on the maturity of each congregation.

I would add that we need to also be careful not to impose too much on the administration of the Supper, so as to make it more like the Roman Catholic Mass, i.e. a magical administration of grace all by itself. Not discerning the body in the Supper is also not discerning the body in the preaching of the Word. The grace that is given in each is the same grace, not a different grace. Those who sit under the Word are just as much under the injuction as those who partake.

As I said, I think this calls for a careful responsibilty, not one that believes everything is OK and good for the people. For you it may be good and beneficial to have the children at Communion, while for others it would not be a good idea. I think there is a time for certain things because of the situation. If I think about Edward's witness of the movement of the Spirit during his ministry, then I would say that there may indeed have been a time to include certain children. If it had been a year before, I would have strongly discouraged it.
 
Ok, lets get back on topic here. I want to explore the inconsistency some more. I would agree that children need to be examined in their knowledge of the faith before professing faith. But then, I'm leaning more towards Thornwell's view at the moment. If the elders feel a class is necessary then I see no problem with it.

If we are presuming our children regenerate, what changes in our presumption when they make profession of faith? The church, whether intentional or not, is making a clear statement that something has changed in one's status when they make profession for they now have access to the benefits of full communicant membership. For those holding PR, what is that change in presumption? Why even have a profession of faith at all if you already presume they have been regenerate the whole time? What was the church presuming before she allowed full communicant membership to them?

I only pointed out the disciplinary case for the 8 year old as an illustration of the inconsistency. If you are presuming him regenerate, then the church must hold him accountable to that presumption. When he bears fruit contrary to the presumption, what does the church do? We already know what the parents are to do so for the moment leave them out of the equation. Actually, forget about the 8 year old now. Let's go back to Paul's 15 year old or even an adult non-professer. They are living in open rebellion, for now we'll say sexual immorality. What can the church really do to them? They can't strip him of communicant privileges because he never had them. And the church can't strip away his baptism because that is permanent. All they can do is keep him where he already is, outside the "inner sanctuary" with the hope that someday he will repent and be joined to the full communion of the saints. What changes then in the presumption of this baptized person who never had communicant membership?

I know I'm throwing out alot here so if I'm going too fast, please slow me down.
 
[quote:4663bd95f4][i:4663bd95f4]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:4663bd95f4]
Ok, lets get back on topic here. I want to explore the inconsistency some more. I would agree that children need to be examined in their knowledge of the faith before professing faith. But then, I'm leaning more towards Thornwell's view at the moment. If the elders feel a class is necessary then I see no problem with it.

If we are presuming our children regenerate, what changes in our presumption when they make profession of faith? The church, whether intentional or not, is making a clear statement that something has changed in one's status when they make profession for they now have access to the benefits of full communicant membership. For those holding PR, what is that change in presumption? Why even have a profession of faith at all if you already presume they have been regenerate the whole time? What was the church presuming before she allowed full communicant membership to them?[/quote:4663bd95f4]

What changes? Nothing changes in the presumption itself. The change is in the personal responsibility the person takes upon himself, not what is presumed.

[quote:4663bd95f4]I only pointed out the disciplinary case for the 8 year old as an illustration of the inconsistency. If you are presuming him regenerate, then the church must hold him accountable to that presumption. When he bears fruit contrary to the presumption, what does the church do? We already know what the parents are to do so for the moment leave them out of the equation. Actually, forget about the 8 year old now. Let's go back to Paul's 15 year old or even an adult non-professer. They are living in open rebellion, for now we'll say sexual immorality. What can the church really do to them? They can't strip him of communicant privileges because he never had them. And the church can't strip away his baptism because that is permanent. All they can do is keep him where he already is, outside the "inner sanctuary" with the hope that someday he will repent and be joined to the full communion of the saints. What changes then in the presumption of this baptized person who never had communicant membership? [/quote:4663bd95f4]
A case of discipline which ends in excommunication can be applied to any member. It would be very, very rare that this would actually apply to a child. It may occur, and perhaps doesn't often enough, for those who have reached the age of maturity and reject the responsibilities of covenant membership, i.e., do not respond in faith. A person perhaps is not stripped of communucant priveleges he never had, but he may well be stripped of the right to the priveleges, which he did have. He will be outside that "inner sanctuary" but also be seen as being outside the covenant for the duration of his obstinacy.

The church still prays that God will yet move his heart to recognize the promises that are still there, and the assurance that God does not forget His promises, even after a long duration of living in sin. God will remember up to the thousandth generation of those who are faithful. That cannot mean that God promises to bless every generation only for a thousand years, if they all remain faithful. It means that God remains faithful to His promises to His people for ever and it depends not on man. And He may yet remember to visit that one who has strayed, because He promised many generations ago to be faithful.

In all this the presumption does not change. The hopes and aspirations we feel may vary, but the certainty of God's promises do not.

When a man or child, who is in the covenant, fails in his faith, it is not God who has failed, nor His promises. God never promised that He would save all those that we feel deserve baptism or church membership. He promised to save those who are His; and that includes children even at infancy and before, in the womb. We can't explain every aspect of that, but we can find a great comfort in that when our preborn children, or young children, die before they can do what we call a credible profession of faith. And again, just because we believe someone's credible profession, that may not always mean that they are saved. We can only assure according to God's promises, not man's. And that we can do only because we have God's Word on it.

That means we are not only allowed to presume, or privileged to presume, but we must presume; even if it turns out to be wrong in the end. Because if a man falls it is not because God's grace is insufficient, but because his response to faith was insufficient, according to his heart. And his heart only God can know truly. No man goes to heaven against his will, and no man goes to hell against his will either.

[quote:4663bd95f4]I know I'm throwing out alot here so if I'm going too fast, please slow me down. [/quote:4663bd95f4]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top