# Covenant Children Today?



## Formerly At Enmity (Jun 15, 2006)

Do we have any concrete examples of the posterity of any notables such as Edwards or The Mathers or other American stalwarts (Princeton theologians etc.) who are in the ministry today? Do we SEE the Covenant succession today? I've been very curious about this as I make the transition to the Covenantal framework. Especially these days, the empahsis on "a thousand generations" is overwhelming and seems to be the focal point. Again, where are the "children" of these great Covenantal men of God? I don't ask this sarcastically, but honestly! I understand that Covenant Theology does not seem to imply that successive generations will be without breaks in faithfulness, but should we not see one family that has shown faithfulness from generation to generation?


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Jun 17, 2006)

C'mon.......Surely there is someone who can resond and help!

Don't bury this one guys!


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 17, 2006)

Covenant faithfulness does not necessarily mean that a minister's descendants will necessarily be ministers themselves.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 17, 2006)

I think this is the kind of thing you're looking for: 



> Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III, a native of Greenville, South Carolina, was born and reared in the home of an eighth generation Southern Presbyterian Ruling Elder.



http://www.fpcjackson.org/staff/duncan.htm


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 17, 2006)

All I have are the _promises of the Bible,_ and my own anecdotal evidence (which do you think is more reliable?)

My two parents come from slightly different backgrounds. I see greater and more sincere faith in my father's family (who were not Presbyterians before him) than in my mother's (she was a second generation Presbyterian). My children are, therefore, only 4th generation (at best) self-consciously covenantal.

But on both sides of the line, I find believers going back at least 4 and 5 generations (to at least one of my great-great grandmothers who was alive when I was born). From both sets of my grandparents, all their children professed an earnest faith. Three of four sons became ministers (Baptist or Presbyterian), one daughter married a minister (my father). Most of the (19) cousins in my generation have professed faith. Where they have not, or seem perhaps to have strayed from the faith, some evidence is readily at hand to show cause attributable to a lack of attention to covenant responsibility in the earlier generation.

All in all, I find that the prime factor in inter-generational faithfulness in NOT found in the families themselves, or in the manner of profession. In other words, I don't think that an _articulated_ covenantal-faithful idea (such as found in historic Presbyterianism) is the decisive issue. Rather, it is the *fact* of Spirit-endowed covenant faithfulness.

The benefit of covenant-consciousness and an articulated doctrine of the covenant, is that one knows what one is doing, and does it for the right reasons, by means of an integrated theology of covenant-life. Life is _fuller_ when lived self-consciously in the knowledge of God. And God relates to man in no other way than by covenant; so it is better to know and understand that relation, than to live it in partial ignorance.


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Jun 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> I think this is the kind of thing you're looking for:
> 
> 
> ...


 
EXACTLY! This is what I'm looking for......Iwould love to know if the descendants of these Men and Women of God have the faith of their ancestors! As a man who is celebrating Father's day for the first time and who hopes to bring children into the world that will subsequently take advantage of their place in the covenant, I want to know if Warfiled's grandchildren did the same!! Or the Hodges!!! Do any of you come from a long line of believers?


----------



## sailorswife (Jun 19, 2006)

I had read in the past about the descendants of Jonathon Edwards so I went looking online and found some information. The article focused on self-discipline not a convenant keeping God, but this part of the article is interesting:

Generational Discipline 
By Michael Janke 


Around 40 years ago, Yale University conducted an extensive seven-year study on how a persons actions in life effects the lives of his or her children. This study was focused around the lives of two men: Max Jukes and Jonathan Edwards. Max Jukes was an Atheist that believed in the abolition of laws and rules. Mr. Jukes formed an organization called the Freedom Movement that preached free sex, no laws, no formal education and no responsibilities. Jonathan Edwards was known by all as the "disciplinarian". Not because he disciplined his children harshly, but because he was a self-disciplined man. He became a preacher that believed in leading by example. He authored two books on the subjects of physical fitness and kindness. Mr. Edwards later became involved in teaching people to be responsible for their daily actions. Both of these men were chosen for their diverse beliefs, but also because they both fathered 13 children. Here are the legacies they left behind: 



MAX JUKES 
1026 descendants 
300 convicts 
27 murderers 
190 prostitutes 
509 alcoholics & drug addicts 

JONATHON EDWARDS 
929 descendants 
430 ministers/314 war veterans 
75 authors 
86 college professors 
13 university presidents 
7 congressman 
3 governors 
1 Vice-President of the United States


[Edited on 6-19-2006 by sailorswife]


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Jun 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by sailorswife_
> I had read in the past about the descendants of Jonathon Edwards so I went looking online and found some information. The article focused on self-discipline not a convenant keeping God, but this part of the article is interesting:
> 
> Generational Discipline
> ...




that is incredibly good stuff! thank you for that!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by sailorswife_
> I had read in the past about the descendants of Jonathon Edwards so I went looking online and found some information. The article focused on self-discipline not a convenant keeping God, but this part of the article is interesting:
> 
> Generational Discipline
> ...



Here is a critique of this story.


----------



## 3John2 (Jun 24, 2006)

I was just listening to the Together for The Gospel Conference CD's & It appears that John MacArthur is like a 5th generation preacher? Don't know if that's like what you are looking for.


----------



## DTK (Jun 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by sailorswife_
> 
> JONATHON EDWARDS
> 929 descendants
> ...


From every indication, the one vice-president was a covenant-breaker. 

DTK


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 24, 2006)




----------



## MW (Jun 25, 2006)

We should be careful not to misapply the promises of God. If Israel's history teaches anything, then it is this: not all children of the flesh are children of the promise. And yet if some descendants are unfaithful that does not nullify God's faithfulness. We can still trust Him to be the God of our children.

As far as practical examples are concerned, it suffices for me to know that there is no example in the NT of the child of a believer being baptised on his own profession of faith.


----------



## BJClark (Jun 26, 2006)

I don't know what your looking for, as far as if descendants are Pastors or if they are only believers.

I can not speak for every person within my extended family, but I do know that going up my ancestory line...on my mothers side...

My mother was a Christian, she walked away for a season but returned to her faith.

Her father and mother (My grandparents) were/are Christians, and ensured all of their children and grandchildren went to church when they visited us or we visited them. My Grandfather felt it was HIS responsibility to have us in Church. 

My greatgrandparents were also Christians, I would have to locate the newspaper article from the early 1900's concerning a Family Reunion where they had some 1000+ descendents of one family at the reunion, where it talks about how many became doctors, lawyers, Preachers and teachers. And how they prayed at the reunion for future generations to come to a Saving Knowledge of Jesus Christ.

I and my three siblings, and many of my cousins (not all, but many) and our children, are all Born Again Believers.

So in our family line, God has honored the prayers of our ancestors, that future generations will come to know Christ as our Savior. 

Though we have all at times stumbled and walked away from Church, we are all currently faithful in our walk and attend Church, and serve God in various capacities.

Again, I don't know if you are looking for generations of Pastors or generations of families whose Children have come to Christ as their Savior, so I shared how God has been faithful in my own family, for many generations.

[Edited on 6-26-2006 by BJClark]


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Jun 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> I don't know what your looking for, as far as if descendants are Pastors or if they are only believers.
> 
> I can not speak for every person within my extended family, but I do know that going up my ancestory line...on my mothers side...
> ...




....I guess that I just get the feeling that somewhere down the line, descendants of people like Edwards became a bunch of unitarian weirdos....I have no basis for assumimng this; it is simply a matter of not hearing about it! Are Whitefield's great-great grandchildren a bunch of drunks? This is something that really concerns me; not on God's end but on the Parent's end...WHERE DID IT FALL APART!
I'm not trying to be difficult, I simply want to know that Godly men and women from centuries ago actually have a legacy..


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 26, 2006)

I think it's an interesting question. Great men of the faiths family could make an interesting discussion if there is any info out there.


----------



## BJClark (Jun 26, 2006)

To find out you would really need to do a family history search.

If he had daughters, who did they marry? Who are their children? 

Like for example:

Many of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards' descendents became prominent citizens in the United States, including the Vice President Aaron Burr and the College Presidents Timothy Dwight, Jonathan Edwards Jr. and Merrill Edwards Gates.

okay, so we are looking for the surnames Burr, Dwight, Edwards and Gates, 
just to get started. 

Jonathan Edwards the Younger: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_(the_younger)

Timothy Dwight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Dwight

He and his brother, Theodore, were members of a group of writers centered around Yale known as the "Hartford Wits."

So we would also need to look up Brother Theodore Dwight, and see who he married and who his children are.

Dwight left eight sons: Timothy (1778-1884), a New Haven merchant and philanthropist; James (17__-18__); Benjamin Woolsey Dwight (1780-1850), a New York physician; educator and theologian Sereno Edwards Dwight (1786-1850); and clergyman William Theodore Dwight (1795-1865). Dwight's grandson and namesake, "Timothy Dwight the Younger" (1828-1916), served as Yale's president, 1886-1899.

brother William Dwight (1795-1865), who was also successively a lawyer and a Congregational preacher. (who were his children?)

Merrill Edwards Gates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrill_Edwards_Gates

From there you would need to locate their childrens names and who they married, and trace it forward, and you may find some who were/are pastors, and very possible some who were/are drunkards.

Even within my own family, I have seen both, granted to my knowledge none of my ancestors were Prominate Pastors of the Reformation, but they did sit under many of them preaching in their churches, so even that respect I and my children included would be their spiritual descendants. 

Not even all of Abraham's Descendants were/are believers, so how can we rightly expect that every one of our own descendants or even many of the descendants of famous preachers would ALL be believers?



> Especially these days, the empahsis on "a thousand generations" is overwhelming and seems to be the focal point



Even in respects to "a thousand generations" it could be one child born of that person who has chosen to follow God and only one of their children and one of theirs, it doesn't necessarily mean every single child would be a believer. 

It could be you are the thousandth generation in your own family, it could my children are the thousandth generation within my own family, I don't know, but we must remember we are on Gods time table of generations, not our own.

I do know however, that even within my own family line that I shared, not every person, even within my own generation are believers. Not all of my mothers siblings are believers, so that is two generations right there that not all are believers but some ARE, so the promise of various generations has still been fullfilled.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 23, 2007)

This is another wrinkle in the Edwards legacy.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 23, 2007)

The Rev. Janet Edwards? So, maybe this having kids who are ministers isn't always a good thing, no?


----------



## elnwood (Jan 23, 2007)

Not that this proves anything one way or the other, but when I hear about "covenant succession," I wonder about what to make of Protestant Europe. You would think from simple mathematics that if faithful Protestant, covenant-raising parents leads to faithful children (even in general), that Protestant Europe would be full of Christians today. However, Europe is very anti-Christian today.

I see the promise of faithfulness to children to mean faithfulness to spiritual children, not physical. If God made his promises to physical children, then would God have broken his promise if the physical children did not receive the inheritance? May we never say that God is not faithful to his promises!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 23, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Not that this proves anything one way or the other, but when I hear about "covenant succession," I wonder about what to make of Protestant Europe. You would think from simple mathematics that if faithful Protestant, covenant-raising parents leads to faithful children (even in general), that Protestant Europe would be full of Christians today. However, Europe is very anti-Christian today.
> 
> I see the promise of faithfulness to children to mean faithfulness to spiritual children, not physical. If God made his promises to physical children, then would God have broken his promise if the physical children did not receive the inheritance? May we never say that God is not faithful to his promises!



Exactly; Not all Israel is Israel. Apostasy is not Gods fault, He holds His promise.


----------



## Poimen (Jan 23, 2007)

Formerly At Enmity said:


> Do we have any concrete examples of the posterity of any notables such as Edwards or The Mathers or other American stalwarts (Princeton theologians etc.) who are in the ministry today? Do we SEE the Covenant succession today? I've been very curious about this as I make the transition to the Covenantal framework. Especially these days, the empahsis on "a thousand generations" is overwhelming and seems to be the focal point. Again, where are the "children" of these great Covenantal men of God? I don't ask this sarcastically, but honestly! I understand that Covenant Theology does not seem to imply that successive generations will be without breaks in faithfulness, but should we not see one family that has shown faithfulness from generation to generation?



My surname goes back to the Reformation, to the Dutch Reformed churches. God is, indeed, faithful and He never breaks His promises. My family is a living example of God's faithfulness for it is all of grace. 

As an aside, I have been told that the 'Kok' name has featured rather prominently amongst ministers in the Reformed church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 23, 2007)

This discussion is ironic because I was thinking of this last night (early AM for you guys). I was look at Scott Bushey's signature line where Hoeksema is quoted as saying: "We may even take for granted that in the sphere of the covenant of God He usually regenerates His elect children from infancy."

I thought: Well if he usually did so then one would expect an ever expanding population of visible Christians and would not see so many breaks in succession. (BTW, I'm not picking on you Scott)

I believe it is ultimately fruitless to contemplate why Covenant succession fails in many families in the decree of God. We do know, from what is revealed, that the proximate cause of that failure is parents who failed to train their children. That goes to our responsibility in the matter while leaving the hidden things to God.

To simply affirm that it is all of spiritual descent and speak of election as some bare act apart from the agency of Godly parents and Churches is simply foreign to the Scriptures. Christians don't just spring up by spontaneous generation. A Church with families that have kids that abandon the Lord is severely impoverished.

I love what Bruce wrote above. I cannot look at any heritage of faith in my direct ancestry. I have an ancestor that came over on the Mayflower so maybe I had a distant relative that prayed for his/her great-great-great-great granchildren that I might be saved. I was rescued, by the Grace of God, out of Roman Catholicism as the majority of my stock is Irish and Roman Catholic to the core. I thank God for some of the Biblical data I learned during those years. I even thank Him for a Roman Catholic priest who was more Evangelical than Reformed and preached salvation by faith alone. I didn't realize how impoverished I was, however, until I clearly saw the Gospel. I didn't realize how impoverished my family life had been until I saw the beauty of that Covenant. 

Everything in my child-rearing is focused on this: I want to see my children's children call upon the name of the Lord. Living family life in light of God's Covenant is so rich. I hadn't seen my extended family for about 2 years when we went to Texas for Christmas. The time apart from seeing and interacting with siblings, in-laws, and their children made me see the striking differences in family life. It was shocking to me and sad to watch. I don't know how I could hold a family together with what little hope they operate on and how distant their internal family life is. My brother reads his Bible every day but he never reads it with his kids or his wife. He never prays with them.

My family has its problems - chief among them is me and my spiritual laziness but I thank God that He has rescued me from the impoverished family life that is normal today. It was really quite embarassing because my Sister really noticed it. Poor thing, please pray for her. I love her dearly as well as her husband and daughter but they need Christ. I even told her so but it's so foreign to her until she has eyes to see. Anyhow, she must have told Sonya and I about a dozen times how "perfect" our family was. Hardly but man!

I know I'm rambling but, instead of focusing on the hidden counsel of God, let's thank Him for what He's revealed and promised and given to us. I'm living with tremendous blessing right now and I have every confidence that He has shown mercy to me, a sinner in saving Me and giving me children that He commands me to train from the knee.

Me: What is sin?
Anna (2): Sin is any want of confoamity, or twansgweshun of the Lot of God.

Amen! Take delight that your little child's mind is being filled with the things of God!


----------



## Archlute (Jan 24, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> We should be careful not to misapply the promises of God. If Israel's history teaches anything, then it is this: not all children of the flesh are children of the promise. And yet if some descendants are unfaithful that does not nullify God's faithfulness. We can still trust Him to be the God of our children.
> 
> As far as practical examples are concerned, it suffices for me to know that there is no example in the NT of the child of a believer being baptised on his own profession of faith.



Amen. 

There is a good article from several years back in the Mid-America Journal of Theology, written by the Rev. Alan Strange, on the issue of covenant succession as it has been recently pressed in modern conservative Reformed circles. It was an excellent critique that basically showed how some Presbyterians have turned parenting into a sacrament, and have ignored the sovereignty of God to say 'yea' or 'nay' even among a believing family. I cannot remember the specific issue, but I believe that I had mentioned it in the past on a thread here somewhere (meaning, if you're really interested, you can search for it while I get back to my studies   )


----------



## elnwood (Jan 24, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Most of the faithful came over here. We were good for a while. But then most of them became baptists. Hence the problems we see now. I call it the baptist curse:



Neither funny nor accurate. The Puritan "faithful" became Unitarians, whereas the Baptists came to America, where they weren't persecuted by a united church and state, prospered.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jan 24, 2007)

My roommate one year in college was Billy Graham's great grandson, at least he claimed to be, he punched me one night because he got drunk and I tried to help him to his room.

He was not a Christian sad to say more of an Eddie Haskell.


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 24, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Historically you are wrong Paul, even though it was a cute statement.
> 
> 
> While a mainstream of Presbyterians have kept the faith, the baptists have - as a whole stayed much more faithful.
> ...


Interesting points, Trevor. I'll try to address some of them herein from how I am seeing things as a fairly new Confessionalist, coming from a liberal Methodist background. 

Perhaps it is because the Presbyterian Church has tended to be something of the canary in the coal mine that's the first to die when things start going bad. Now the fact that the denominations go down in flames is due to compromising church leadership and not adhering strictly enough to the Confessions.

In non-confessional churches, the decline seems to be slower, though starting from a less sound foundation. Along the way, these churches pick up a host of bad doctrines due to their lack of concern for secondary issues (Dispensationalism, charismatic, church growth pragmatism, etc...).

Machen's criticism of the liberals as being against the Presbyterian confession was very clearly expressed as truth when the OPC left. The confession puts the burden of proof on the innovator; however, it is always tempting to give the innovator the benefit of the doubt in these matters. 

Confessional bodies do seem to live and die by their confessions, and when they deprecate them, they definitely plummet much faster than any other type of church...which leads to a lot of other interesting questions.

Of course the real challenge is setting up a faithful body of churches that won't disintegrate into liberalism or other major theological deviances in 40-60 years.

Thoughts?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2007)

Rich,
The key portion of Hoekesma's statement is true:



> It is therefore independent of age and can take place in the smallest infants. We may even take for granted........



I have to admit, Hoeksema may be going out on the proverbial limb here, but if he is like me, he was acting upon the miraculous portion of faith, the same faith that Abraham had in regards to issac, 'Genesis 22:6-8 6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. 7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:". For what it's worth, I pray to be as faithful in regards to _believing_ God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> Rich,
> The key portion of Hoekesma's statement is true:
> 
> I have to admit, Hoeksema may be going out on the proverbial limb here, but if he is like me, he was acting upon the miraculous portion of faith, the same faith that Abraham had in regards to issac, 'Genesis 22:6-8 6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. 7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:". For what it's worth, I pray to be as faithful in regards to _believing_ God.



Scott,

I don't have a problem with the idea of regeneration occurring at a time of God's choosing and we know that God can regenerate from the womb. My problem is with the idea that He _usually_ does. It's pretty hard to see that borne out. You would expect to _usually_ see long strains of Covenantal faithfulness.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Historically you are wrong Paul, even though it was a cute statement.
> 
> 
> While a mainstream of Presbyterians have kept the faith, the baptists have - as a whole stayed much more faithful.
> ...



These kind of arguments are so pointless. First, I see Baptists saying "You can't really call us a denomination because we're independent" and then I hear them say "Well, the Baptists are the ones that have remained mostly faithful compared to the mainline Presbyterians...."

You know who outdoes both of us: Roman Catholics. Now _that's_ a sect that's been uncompromisingly dedicated to the same doctrine for a long, long time!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 24, 2007)

This is indeed an interesting topic. I hear many say how godless our generation is, but then I think, well who raised this godless seed?

Living in Princeton NJ for the last six years, you would think from the rich reformed heritage of that region of our nation, that there would be confessional churches throughout. In reality it is quite the opposite. Liberalism is rampant and confessional churches are few and far between. Many of the confessional churches that are in the area are liberal in comparison to many outside of the North East. At my former PCA church in Princeton, right before we moved, we had a couple join the congregation who just relocated from Texas. In Texas they attended a PCUSA church, but made the statement that this new PCA church they now go to in Princeton is noticeably more liberal than their former PCUSA. That is quite telling of that entire metropolitan area between Philadelphia through New York City and up through Boston. I was just talking with a confessional friend who is in the Boston area. He attends an independent, non-denominational church because there are no confessional churches close to him. Considering the rich heritage from Philly to Princeton to Connecticut and Boston, that is truly sad.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> These kind of arguments are so pointless. First, I see Baptists saying "You can't really call us a denomination because we're independent" and then I hear them say "Well, the Baptists are the ones that have remained mostly faithful compared to the mainline Presbyterians...."



Good point. Technically the majority of the shallow, easy believism, arminian dispensationalist broad evangelicals that saturate this country (Osteens, Hagees, Warrens, Hybels, et all) consider themselves “Baptists”. Throwing the numbers argument around is futile.




SemperFideles said:


> You know who outdoes both of us: Roman Catholics. Now _that's_ a sect that's been uncompromisingly dedicated to the same doctrine for a long, long time!



It makes sense that a works-based salvation promoting church would stay visibly united – just think of the consequences!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 24, 2007)

well, my church father can beat up your church father!


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jan 24, 2007)

Would you like to see what covenantal succession I sprang from?

Great great grandfather, committed suicide and wasn't a believer.
Great grandfather, died at 54 from multiple heart attacks and was not a believer.
Grandfather, believes in ghosts and has never attended church until he remarried this Catholic woman and now goes to mass half asleep.
Dad, workoholic with a civil religion.
Me, Reformed Presbyterian, adherent to the Doctrines of Grace, covenantal, anti-pagan.

Election anyone? I certainly didn't grow up this way.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> These kind of arguments are so pointless. First, I see Baptists saying "You can't really call us a denomination because we're independent" and then I hear them say "Well, the Baptists are the ones that have remained mostly faithful compared to the mainline Presbyterians...."



It's really not that confusing. Baptists form associations of independent churches, and we have a common belief system, but we don't have a denominational hierarchy. There is no "Baptist Church" beyond the local level, in the sense that Presbyterians will talk about "The Presbyterian Church."

We all know and can say that the Puritans (who were independent and congregational) went apostate, so I don't see why we can't say the Baptists remained faithful. So I don't see how those statements are in conflict.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 24, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Well, heavens gate, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Branch-Davidians, People's Temple, Word of Faith, Moonies, &c, &c, &c, are all baptists.
> 
> So I wouldn't be braggin either



We're talking about Christian groups and apostasy. Those aren't trinitarian baptisms, which Presbyterians agree is a different baptism altogether. And there are plenty of apostate trinitarian paedobaptist groups.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 24, 2007)

The largest cult in the world, Rome, does not practice believers baptism.


----------



## Poimen (Jan 24, 2007)

elnwood said:


> I see the promise of faithfulness to children to mean faithfulness to spiritual children, not physical. If God made his promises to physical children, then would God have broken his promise if the physical children did not receive the inheritance? May we never say that God is not faithful to his promises!



This objection is answered in Romans 9.

vss. 3-5 "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers,[a] my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."

It is clear that to the promises were delivered to the 'kinsmen according to the flesh.' You are correct, however, in pointing out that the promises ultimately only applied to the spiritual children.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 24, 2007)

Someone said that Baptists beat up the Presbyterians re. missionary zeal.

The numbers do not agree.

I don't have the stats, but (ignoring history for the moment) head-for-head membership vs. missionaries, the Presbyterians/Reformed are the champs.

Not only does the PCA have one of the largest missionary forces in the world, but other churches such as the OPC, which had its nucleus in missionary zeal, send missionary-ministers (were not talking about week-long excursions) at tremendous ratios to total membership.

The OPC has a denominational budget of just over 2.5 million dollars of which the vast majority goes to World (the majority) and Home Missions (and a HQ that employs all of about 8-10 people), just over 25,000 members (including covenant children), and they fully fund about 10 missionary families, and partially as many more. And of course, that doesn't include other missionaries supported directly by the Presbyteries, and still more by particular churches. That little church is supporting worldwide missions at $1000 per head including infants. What are the Baptists doing again?


Look, I'm not saying this to go head to head with anyone. Just saying that its not really productive to start bidding wars in matters pertaining to the Kingdom, y'knowadaymean?
Peace.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 24, 2007)

I wish they'd send some down here and help clean out these charismatics!


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 24, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Election anyone? I certainly didn't grow up this way.



Very similar to my (and my wife's) story. Neither of us had anything going for us in terms of tradition. Atheism, masonism, occultism, rationalism, and quite literally any other ism I can think of except Hinduism.

I once counted out my extended family: more than 50 cousins, 24 aunts and uncles, 4 grandparents. Out of that grand number there are or were a total of 4 (not counting my wife and me) who even professed Christ. Of those, three are Charismatics Arminians. The remaining one is a PCUSA minister who is part of the confessional movement there.

Election indeed.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Scott,
> 
> I don't have a problem with the idea of regeneration occurring at a time of God's choosing and we know that God can regenerate from the womb. My problem is with the idea that He _usually_ does. It's pretty hard to see that borne out. You would expect to _usually_ see long strains of Covenantal faithfulness.



Rich,
I don't know if that is necessarily true. I don't believe HH is saying that _all_ covenant children are regenerated at birth but that there is a good possibility, based upon His promise, that the elect are regenerated @ birth. Conversion is another matter. Who am I to question Gods faithfulness. he was that faith ful w/ John, why not all elect infants? I would rather assume this fact than otherwise. I have never seen an elect person who has not come to faith.


----------



## Poimen (Jan 25, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Yep, that's right.
> 
> So, when Baptists bring out the Rome charge (as they are wont to do), I bring out the Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Moonie, Branch Davidian, &c, card.
> 
> ...



 I'll remember that one next time I am debating with a Baptist over baptism.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 18, 2007)

Joel Beeke, _Puritan Reformed Spirituality_, p. 212 (concerning John Brown of Haddington):



> *A Spiritual Dynasty*
> 
> Brown had many children, some of whom became prominent Christian leaders. His son John (1754-1832) was minister of Whitburn for fifty-five years and was a prolific devotional writer; Ebenezer (d. 1836) was a prominent preacher at Inverkeithing, Fife, for fifty-six years; Samuel (1779-1839) helped start circulating libraries; and William (1783-1863) was a historian of missions and an excellent biographer of his father. Grandson John Brown (1784-1858) served as pastor at Broughton Place United Presbyterian Church, Edinburgh, and was Professor of Exegetical Theology in the United Secession and United Presbyterian College, Edinburgh. Great-grandson Robert Johnston (d. 1918) was a professor in the United Presbyterian College, Edinburgh, and United Free Church College, Aberdeen. Another great-grandson, John (Rab) Brown (1810-82), became a medical doctor and writer. And great-great-grandsons John (1818-92) and David Cairns (1862-1946) became outstanding Presbyterian teachers and writers. Brown's descendants so respected him that some traveled to Scotland from the United States in 1987 for events marking the bicentennial of Brown's death.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 27, 2007)

I read recently that Robert M. Kingdon said that "I descend, to be sure, from a line of Protestant missionaries, ministers and religious educators..." (presidential address delivered at the annual meeting of the American Society of Church History, 28 December 1980; published as _The Church: Ideology or Institution_ in _Church History_, Vol. 50, 1981).


----------

