# Is the Promise Conditional?



## christianyouth (Oct 8, 2008)

From talking to a lot of paedo-baptists, it sounds like one of their rationales for baptizing their children is because of a promise that God made to save their children. They say that they trust God at his promise to save their children, and the baptism of the child is a public ceremony showing God's promise to save that child.

But doesn't trusting in the promise imply that the promise is unconditional? If the promise is for all children of all believers, and is unconditional, then wouldn't we expect that all children of believers will be saved? I don't think many believe this, so I'm assuming that most people would see the promise of salvation given to the children as being conditional.

If the promise is conditional, what are the conditions? If the conditions are faith and repentance on behalf of the covenant child, what makes the promise significant? I question the significance of the promise because if it is conditioned on faith and repentance on the part of the Covenant child, because that promise is not unique to covenant children, but is a promise that is given to all who hear the Gospel.

So which is it? Is the promise for God to save our children universal and unconditional or is it universal and conditional?

I may have missed something here, and I can see how depending upon the nature of the promise, paedo-baptism could be true in both cases. So I'm not using this to debate the validity of paedo-baptism, but I'm trying to find what exactly is the nature of the promise made to children of believers. 

Looking forward to your response.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 8, 2008)

Andrew, your premise goes too far. The promise is not a promise of unconditional salvation. The condition of election and calling is still necessary. Here is the relevant section of the OPC Book of Church Order:



> B. Holy Baptism
> 
> 1. Before the administration of the sacrament of baptism, the minister shall give instruction as to the institution and nature of the sacrament:
> 
> ...


----------



## christianyouth (Oct 8, 2008)

Ok, if baptism doesn't signify the promise of God to save our children, what does it signify? Is it just entrance into the 'outward privileges of the church', as that article said? I've always thought that we baptize based on the promise that God would save our children, but the article doesn't mention that as part of the rationale for baptism.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 8, 2008)

That's a great question Andrew. No it is not just an entrance into the 'outward privileges of the church'. Baptism actually confers real grace.

Take a look at this excerpt from the Westminster Conf.:

28:6. 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 belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

It extends God's grace toward the sinner. By it's being conferred through the church the sinner receives the grace of the covenantal benefits of the visible body. By God's grace the parents commit to making allowance for the child to hear the Gospel and be exposed to Biblical teaching. The child is surrounded and immersed (I know you Baptists like that word, ) by the real gracious benefits of God's mercy and all the promises that God's makes to his church and to his people. There is a great and gracious benefit to being included in the community of faith.

We could find a parallel in Paul's answer to the question "Is there any advantage to being a Jew?" The question is similar to "Is there any advantage to being within the community of God's people?" Yes, in every way. The baptized have the oracles of God, the administration of the Word, etc. Sorry Andrew, I'm typing in haste, I wish I had more time to formulate and organize this better.




christianyouth said:


> Ok, if baptism doesn't signify the promise of God to save our children, what does it signify? Is it just entrance into the 'outward privileges of the church', as that article said? I've always thought that we baptize based on the promise that God would save our children, but the article doesn't mention that as part of the rationale for baptism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 8, 2008)

Andrew,
If you modify your original wording slightly, you would have a more accurate statement of paedo-baptist parents' hope (or what they should be hoping): "They trust God at his promise to save their *elect* children." Read that way, the condition is expressed right in the statement.

We just don't have a robust theology if we ever leave out the doctrine of election.

The promise is not that "God will save THIS child." Never has been, even if some have erred in so thinking. The promise is that God will save everyone, doesn't matter who it is, _who puts their faith in Christ._ And "the promise is to [us] and to [our] children, ... as many as the Lord our God will call."


----------



## christianyouth (Oct 8, 2008)

Ahh thanks! That makes a lot of sense. The covenant child is promised a lot of covenantal benefits(just as Israel), but not eternal salvation(just as Israel). 

Using Paul's writings about Israel being privileged because they were entrusted with the oracles of God and applying that to the benefits of the Covenant child, would this mean that the covenant child is distinguished from the pagan by having more of a chance to be converted due to exposure to the Gospel? Would that be the only distinction between the covenant child and the unconverted?

Also, Is it fair to say that there is no connection between baptism and a promise of salvation toward the covenant child? If so, I wonder about a lot of the paedo-baptists who seem to acknowledge that salvation is conditioned upon election and calling, and yet also use language that implies that their children will be saved because God promised to save them.

EDIT : Oops, I posted before I read Rev. Buchanan's post. Going to read it now.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 8, 2008)

> Using Paul's writings about Israel being privileged because they were entrusted with the oracles of God and applying that to the benefits of the Covenant child, would this mean that the covenant child is distinguished from the pagan by having more of a chance to be converted due to exposure to the Gospel?



Just replace the word 'pagan' with 'worldling' and you are exactly correct. We do not raise our children as worldlings or as worldlings do. We raise our children as God's people.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 8, 2008)

My answer here.


----------



## christianyouth (Oct 8, 2008)

Thank you, brother. Bob and Rev. Buchanan. I just want to say, that this is a solid view. I have no problem with this view. But can I just clarify, are you admitting that the Covenant child is still an enemy of God prior to conversion? And that the Covenant child is a recipient of the same promise as is all people, as Rev. Buchanan posted? (IE, that all who place their faith in Christ will be saved)

EDIT : Just wanted to clarify, it just seems like what you are saying is the covenant child, prior to conversion, is on no different grounds than is the 'worldling'(like that word lol). The only difference, is that this child has more of a chance to be converted. Is that a fair representation of the paedo-baptist position on this?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 8, 2008)

"are you admitting that the Covenant child is still an enemy of God prior to conversion?"

In one sense this is true, but not in every sense of the word. Listen to Paul: Rom 11:28 "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching *the election*, they are *beloved *_for the fathers' sakes."_

Every sinner, prior to conversion, is an enemy of God. He is an enemy viewed through his relationship to ADAM, his federal head. However, God's elect were loved in Christ before the foundation of the world! (Eph.1:4)

But temporally, he waits to be in union with Christ by faith. No such thing as "eternal justification," or union-without-faith. But, if an infant is ELECT, then God knows him "in Christ," just as he knew YOU "in Christ" before you were actually "in Christ."

Furthermore, infants are able to apprehend Christ in faith, according to Scriptures own teaching, well before "full cognitive awareness" can put such hope into words (see Ps.71:6,18; Ps.22:9; Lk.1:44; Jer.1:5; Lk.18:15-16). Therefore, rather than excluding the inexpressible EARLY faith of SOME of these children, we believe God commands us to visibly include ALL of them for the sake of the elect among them. (We don't refuse to baptize _adults_ because some of them are false, so...)


To return to the loved/not loved paradox,these are truly great mysteries, but they are revealed truths. God's elect, prior to their conversion are his enemies in Adam, but in Christ they were loved before the world began, and his gifts and callings are without repentance. These mysteries can only be satisfactorily reconciled (I say) by understanding our federal relations, the two "Heads" of the elect. Christ's headship supersedes Adam's.

God makes his declarations _in the context of Covenant,_ always there, and only there. Is there any advantage to being a [visible covenant member]? Much in every way... (Rom. 3:1-2). So, to sharpen your comment, about "the same promise as is [for?] all people,"--we have to remember that that the promise is only theoretically to all people.

In actuality not every single individual 
1) literally hears the promise (i.e. God doesn't let them so much as encounter it via print, radio, personal evangelist, etc.), and 
2) the difference between the external and the internal call (not everyone who hears, hears the same way).

So, a covenant child is, _by virtue of his birth,_ identified as a disciple--and disciples are to be baptized and catechized. This is the simple truth of Mt 28:19-20. ANYONE in the context of the church and under the ministry of the gospel Word has, on that basis alone, a greater reason to hope in the mercies of God than someone outside of it.

So, yes the covenant, baptized child has a better chance indeed of being converted than one outside, just as that baptized, adult professor has a better chance of being converted because he's sitting under the same ministry. "Oh, but he's converted already." Really. How do you know...?


----------



## JoshBrisby (Oct 8, 2008)

Mr. Clerebout,

Greetings in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

I was a Reformed Baptist for many years--over nine years. I think what is helpful is, many times, to replace the word "baptism" for "circumcision." I think Calvin is helpful when he mentions that there is nothing a Baptist can bring up against infant baptism which could also be applied to circumcision.

Of course, I know you are sincerely asking and not trying to debate. So it will be helpful I think if we do the word "circumcision" in your original question:

"From talking to [Abraham], it sounds like one of [his] rationales for [circumcising] [his] children is because of a promise that God made to save [his] children. [He] say that [he] trust God at his promise to save [his] children, and the [circumcision] of the child is a public ceremony showing God's promise to save that child."

Forgive tampering with your quote; I just thought it would be helpful to see what Calvin was getting at. In other words, we paedobaptists see that the covenant of grace has *always* been both unconditional and conditional. We don't see it changing in the New Covenant administration. With regards to essence, the covenant of grace has always been made with only the elect. But, with regards to administration, it has always included both elect and non-elect, both believers and their covenant children. 

Baptists will say that it is different in the New Covenant, and that now only the elect are included in the administration. But paedobaptists look at different New Testament texts which indicate that one can be "in" the covenant but not "of" the covenant: Jn 15, 1 Co 5, Heb 6 and 10 (especially verses 30-31), Rom 11, etc. We don't see Jeremiah 31 exegeted in the New Testament to say that it means that now only the elect are in the covenant in this administration of the covenant of grace.

In fact, Jer 31 is exegeted twice in the NT, both times in Hebrews. And both times it is explained to mean that Christ is a better Mediator, in the order of Melchizedek. It never says that the NC is better b/c now you can no longer fall from it. In fact, we paedos don't think the credo position makes sense in light of the many warnings against falling away in the NT.

However, at the end of the day, I am a father of five baptized covenant children. I believe the warnings and the curses are, or should be, an anomaly. I do indeed trust God to save *my* children. But is it a promise that He promises to save Gabriel Luther Brisby, Aaron Van Til Brisby, Rebekah Emerald Brisby, Owen Isaac Brisby, and Isaiah Calvin Brisby? 

No--but neither was it a promise to save both Isaac and Ishmael. But God did promise to be a God Isaac and Ishmael, to both Jacob and Esau.


----------



## Davidius (Oct 8, 2008)

A little while back I asked basically the same question: 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/difference-between-promises-covenant-non-covenant-children-33154/


----------



## JoshBrisby (Oct 8, 2008)

BTW, I hope the above was helpful! I hope I didn't go on too long of a tangent.


----------



## christianyouth (Oct 8, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> "are you admitting that the Covenant child is still an enemy of God prior to conversion?"
> 
> In one sense this is true, but not in every sense of the word. Listen to Paul: Rom 11:28 "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching *the election*, they are *beloved *_for the fathers' sakes."_
> 
> ...



Hmm... This is a good answer! I need to mull this over some more, and then I'll respond.


----------



## christianyouth (Oct 9, 2008)

Ok, well I thought it over, and I think this is a good view! I'm not used to seeing this view, since it doesn't assume that the covenant child is entitled to salvation, or that the covenant child can be saved by a different method than adults, ie through repentance and faith. I'm actually at a loss as to find anything wrong with this view, and as a Baptist, that's scary lol. But thank you Rev. Buchanan for taking the time to respond to my question. I'm a lot clearer now on this issue and I understand more about the distinction between the covenant child. The covenant child receives the same promise as all(salvation by faith) but is blessed and more likely to be converted because having exposure to the Gospel(and maybe Baptism too, since as brother. Bob pointed out, the WCF does say that baptism administers grace). It was really helpful seeing the parallels in Romans, how the Israelites, even though they were not saved, still were blessed because they were entrusted with the oracles of God.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 9, 2008)

One thing that has been helpful to me in understanding this is that we say the children of believers are "holy" (set apart) not because they are automatically saved, but because they are born into a position of privilege- having at least one believing parent to raise them in the nuture and admonition of the Lord and access to the covenant community of believers for the same. These are benefits a child not born to a believing parent does not have.

Partly, baptism signifies this. It also signifies that real grace is imparted in baptism that helps the parent, the child, even the covenant community. "Covenant baptism" signifies all that, and more.


----------

