# Status of children



## msortwell (Nov 11, 2014)

*Regarding the status of the infant children of believing parents . . . *I have three questions. It is my hope that the responses provided by those who take the issue of the sacrament/ordinance seriously will help me to work through some baptism questions with which I have been wrestling.


Are the UNBAPTIZED children of believing parents, in some legitimate sense, breakers of a covenant, and if so, which one(s)?

Are the BAPTIZED children of believing parents, in some legitimate sense, keepers of a covenant, and if so, which one(s)?

Finally, are the infant children of believing Presbyterian parents in the same status of the children of believing Baptist parents until the child is baptized – for those few days it takes to get them to church?


----------



## KMK (Nov 11, 2014)

You should probably define what you mean by 'children'. It is also unclear whether you want credo or paedo answers.


----------



## jandrusk (Nov 11, 2014)

Yes, need more details and definitions around the terms you are using.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 11, 2014)

I don't know if my (or another) answer will meet your need, but I will try. I fear, sometimes, that the effort to reduce the "issues" to a bare minimum of questions masks the thoroughgoing nature of this debate. There are background commitments, a prioris, and previously studied conclusions that form a complex web of belief in which baptism is situated.



msortwell said:


> 1. Are the UNBAPTIZED children of believing parents, in some legitimate sense, breakers of a covenant, and if so, which one(s)?


If it is possible in this NT age for anyone to be properly identified as a "covenant breaker," then the warnings against faithlessness under the Old Covenant (OC) are comparable to the same conditions in this present (new) covenant-era. This is certainly a key issue in the standing debate over baptism and covenant-inclusion. In a strict sense, Baptists deny that there are "covenant-breakers" today, because of the way they read Jer.31:31ff. This stance characterizes the matter of re-baptism, or as most prefer to see it: proper baptism coming after one or more false-baptisms, hence no-baptism. Since those "baptized" were unbelievers, they weren't baptized, even if wetted/dunked. The New Covenant can't be "broken" _in any sense,_ according to traditional Baptist thinking.

Historic Covenant Theology (CT) does not agree with the Baptist interpretation of Jer.31, when it insists that *in no sense* can there be any covenant-breaking in this NC era. The distinction we insist on is that of an internal and an external connection; a substance and an administration distinction. Furthermore, we believe that the basic covenant-relationship between God and his people in OT times was substantively identical to that which obtains in the NT. Only a spiritual connection made the external connection worth anything, as much then as now; and a purely superficial connection was (and is) a double-damnation. 

If baptism and circumcision are of the same _nature,_ i.e. essentially spiritual, and emblems of the covenant of grace; then the warning of Gen.17:14, "...he has broken my covenant," (and see Ex.4:24-26), is comparably transferred. All the other instances of faithless covenant-breaking (usually by adults, see Lev.26:15) have appropriate NC analogies; see esp. the warning passages in Hebrews. What does it mean to be a disciple? Apostasy is giving up that identity, the faith once claimed.

So yes, the Reformed have argued that it would be sinful to neglect the baptism of one's children, since it would be both refusal of a particular duty of believing parents; as well as formally rejecting visible, covenant-claims from heaven, through the church, upon an otherwise appropriate individual. Those children are _passive_ covenant-breakers. It is a breach of the New Covenant.



msortwell said:


> 2. Are the BAPTIZED children of believing parents, in some legitimate sense, keepers of a covenant, and if so, which one(s)?


By parity of reasoning, these children are passive covenant-keepers, insofar as they are legitimately marked as God's property. Of course, there's more to discipleship than mere identification. According to Mt.28:19-20, baptism and _teaching_ (inculcation of the Faith) are coeval aspects of discipleship. So, those same baptized children have not only the instant privilege of indoctrination, but the duty to absorb it and make it theirs by willful acknowledgement in due season. By degrees, they (just as also an adult) lose a portion of their passive/receptive covenant-keeping into active keeping.



msortwell said:


> 3. Finally, are the infant children of believing Presbyterian parents in the same status of the children of believing Baptist parents until the child is baptized – for those few days it takes to get them to church?


This question would not appear to proceed from the perspective I have proposed above, in light of the overall framework of discipleship. The matter of OT infant-circumcision should provide a helpful analogy. Was the OT child, from day1 to day8 (the prescribed day for his ritual) regarded as a "covenant-breaker"? It would seem not only uncharacteristically rigid and hostile; but how could his _failure_ to be circumcised be recognizable as a literal *breach* of a covenant, if he were not _already by birth_ a particular member and party to it?

The real issue, then, is whether even in advance of such an infant-baptism the church and parents recognize that this child is a covenant-member and disciple-material by virtue of a providential birth. Is he (or she, under NT enlargement) entitled to baptism? If so, then to withhold it needlessly makes him or her a passive covenant-breaker. If it be answered, "It's not as if we will neglect to teach him, even without a formal admission to discipleship," we recognize a fundamental distinction in how children of believers are viewed, indicating different doctrines at work. Are they indistinguishable from all the rest of the children in the world?

Is discipleship initiation, in each and every case, something like an enlistment oath, a willful joining of one to the service? Or is discipleship more akin to belonging to a particular people, a kingdom? To bring the first analogy in line, are heavenly citizens only made by a _naturalization process_ and a personal oath of allegiance; and never by an embrace of one's providential blessedness, and ownership of an oath once taken on his behalf? Presbyterians adhere to the latter, and according to their Confession should believe their children "are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized," WLC 166.

Hope this is helpful.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Nov 11, 2014)

Not really an answer to your exact question

We have the faith of Abraham and Abraham was in the covenant before circumcision
In Corinthians a child of a believer is called holy in some sense. Doesn't say if the child is baptized. The condition was child of a believer.
In Romans, Paul greets those in the household of a person who are 'in the Lord' suggesting divided households on the issue


----------



## msortwell (Nov 11, 2014)

I am sorry. I expected that the answers would reveal the doctrine of the responder. I am reluctant to further refine my terms because I am mining for insights more than looking for narrow answers to "fill in blank" questions.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 11, 2014)

msortwell said:


> I am sorry. I expected that the answers would reveal the doctrine of the responder. I am reluctant to further refine my terms because I am mining for insights more than looking for narrow answers to "fill in blank" questions.


Huh? This seems quite uncharitable, especially given Rev. Buchanan's cogent response, one that I might add, is saturated in doctrine--that not a few of us would also affirm.

Your profile states you are a RCUS member. How are your questions related to: this ?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 11, 2014)

Bruce has dealt with the questions beautifully. Not much more to add, really.

1) The children of believers are breakers of the C of W's as we all are. In the compound sense, they remain at enmity with God unless they have been regenerated. In the divided sense, they are set apart for kingdom business, much like those vessels in the temple, i.e. wash basins.

2) If the child is regenerated, In the compound sense, the covenant has been kept by Christ, in the divided, all believers are called to keep covenant. If the child remains unconverted, they are not keeping covenant.

3) Presbyterian children that have the sign placed on them have been set apart. The scriptures make mention of a holiness they partake in. They are non-communing members of the local church. The sign and the thing signified are not one and the same thing. I believe someone compared this mentality to Abraham who was keeping covenant even before having the sign placed on him.


----------



## msortwell (Nov 11, 2014)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> msortwell said:
> 
> 
> > I am sorry. I expected that the answers would reveal the doctrine of the responder. I am reluctant to further refine my terms because I am mining for insights more than looking for narrow answers to "fill in blank" questions.
> ...



Clearly, I should have responded along with quotes of those to whom I was responding (jandrusk and KMK). I found Rev. Buchanan's response very helpful. Still, it was never my intent to be uncharitable to jandrusk or KMK. The questions were written somewhat open-ended to try to allow responders to go where they would with the question. But upon re-reading my response, I regret the reference to "fill in the blank questions." It was intended to characterize what I wanted to avoid, but went further than it should have to make that point. And I am sorry that it could be understood to be characterizing what jandrusk and KMK were asking that I do. That is not what I believe they were asking me to do. My apologies to each of them. 

Regarding the RCUS discussion of Holy Baptism to which you provided a link . . . It does not seem to address the questions that I asked. If I have missed where it does address those questions I would appreciate it if you would point out the related text.


----------



## littlepeople (Nov 12, 2014)

Not sure what is meant by "legitimate" sense, but here are my answers. I'm reading your questions to say "in some sense"

1 Yes Covenant of Grace
2 Yes Covenant of Grace
3 No The sign does not make the covenant.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 12, 2014)

msortwell said:


> Are the UNBAPTIZED children of believing parents, in some legitimate sense, breakers of a covenant, and if so, which one(s)?
> Are the BAPTIZED children of believing parents, in some legitimate sense, keepers of a covenant, and if so, which one(s)?
> Finally, are the infant children of believing Presbyterian parents in the same status of the children of believing Baptist parents until the child is baptized – for those few days it takes to get them to church?



If I am correctly understanding the sense of your questions, I would say...


Yes, in Adam (with the rest of humanity) they have broken the Covenant of Works. 

No. 

As a Baptist, I would say they are. And they remain so even if their parents sprinkle water upon their heads. The only spiritual distinction that can or ought to be made between children or men is this: Have they been brought to a saving interest in Jesus Christ by a lively faith and repentance of their sins, or have they not? That question must occupy the principle place in all our thoughts toward our children. If it does not, for whatever reason, we set our hearts on their destruction.


----------

