# Douglas Wilson's Standing on the Promises



## ServantOfKing

Has anyone ever read this book or is familiar with its content? Does this book teach the same heresies on justification that Wilson is infamous for? I'm interested in reading it but don't want to read something that is way off. Thanks in advance


----------



## RamistThomist

ServantOfKing said:


> Has anyone ever read this book or is familiar with its content? Does this book teach the same heresies on justification that Wilson is infamous for? I'm interested in reading it but don't want to read something that is way off. Thanks in advance



No, no heresies in that book. It is mainly on child-rearing. I enjoyed it. It has a lot of good points. And I think we should be careful of throwing "heresy charges" around.


----------



## brymaes

> It has a lot of good points.


Agreed.


> I think we should be careful of throwing "heresy charges" around.


Judging what is and is not heresy is the job of church councils, not of private individuals.


----------



## KMK

My wife and I read it a while back before I was aware of the FV thing. I cannot remember anything that stuck out as heretical. In fact, the book had many blessings.


----------



## Kevin

Draught Horse said:


> No, no heresies in that book. It is mainly on child-rearing. I enjoyed it. It has a lot of good points. And I think we should be careful of throwing "heresy charges" around.





I liked it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I haven't read the book, but it was reviewed back in the February 1998 issue of _The Blue Banner, _pages 8-9, and the reviewer writes: "Though the book contains much of value, both in the theory and practice of Biblical child raising, it is marred by the author’s misunderstanding of the gospel in making the salvation of covenant children depend upon the works of their parents." See the PDF archive, or the direct link.


----------



## Civbert

NaphtaliPress said:


> I haven't read the book, but it was reviewed back in the February 1998 issue of _The Blue Banner, _pages 8-9, and the reviewer writes: "Though the book contains much of value, both in the theory and practice of Biblical child raising, it is marred by the author’s misunderstanding of the gospel in making the salvation of covenant children depend upon the works of their parents." See the PDF archive, or the direct link.



Thank you!! See, this is why it's important to ask. We don't have to wait for mother "Church" to speak in order to be cautious. We don't have to carry the "we are the sheep" analogy so far as to follow everyone that calls himself a shepherd without question.


----------



## jenney

Maybe this wouldn't bother a paedobaptist, so take it for what it's worth, but this quote made me uncomfortable:

"In context, what are they [the children of elders] to be faithful to? Clearly, they are to be faithful to the teaching of their father. Now do we want to require children to be faithful when they are told to make their beds or take out the trash, but leave them to their rebellion at the most important point--when they are told to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?"

No one's children can believe out of mere obedience to their earthly father. That's so arminian sounding! Especially in the context of qualification for eldership: "if he can't manage his own household, how can he manage the church?" Yikes Louise, is managing his household supposed to consist of successfully ordering his children to convert?

All in all, that's not to discourage you from the book. Just to say that it gave me a lot of guilt because none of my children claimed to be Christians at the time, at least not with any discernable fruit and I wondered why they were so disobedient to our commands to repent and believe.


----------



## KMK

jenney said:


> Maybe this wouldn't bother a paedobaptist, so take it for what it's worth, but this quote made me uncomfortable:
> 
> "In context, what are they [the children of elders] to be faithful to? Clearly, they are to be faithful to the teaching of their father. Now do we want to require children to be faithful when they are told to make their beds or take out the trash, but leave them to their rebellion at the most important point--when they are told to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?"
> 
> No one's children can believe out of mere obedience to their earthly father. That's so arminian sounding! Especially in the context of qualification for eldership: "if he can't manage his own household, how can he manage the church?" Yikes Louise, is managing his household supposed to consist of successfully ordering his children to convert?
> 
> All in all, that's not to discourage you from the book. Just to say that it gave me a lot of guilt because none of my children claimed to be Christians at the time, at least not with any discernable fruit and I wondered why they were so disobedient to our commands to repent and believe.



I don't have the book in front of me but it sounds like he may be interpreting Tit 1:6 a little differently than most but there are some who do believe that verse refers to children who actually profess Christ. I don't agree with him but that interpretation is held by some.


----------



## etexas

theologae said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Judging what is and is not heresy is the job of church councils, not of private individuals.


Wow, wait a minute, not to jack the thread here but I am going to say something shocking for an Anglican.........that is I only partly agree with you on knowing what is and what is not heresy..........OK, I turn on Hinn and he throws his magic white coat into a crowd and most fall and the rest throw money, I do not need to call my Bishop to convene a council for me to know that lobbing white jackets at God's people for healing, being slain in the spirit, and gobs of cash is heresy! Don't believe me? Call my Bishop.


----------



## MW

jenney said:


> No one's children can believe out of mere obedience to their earthly father.



Where is the word "mere" used?

Believing parents are given a prime opportunity to be the means of their children's conversion. Children of believers are more culpable for their unbelief because they have sinned against means. Believing parents become culpable for their children's unbelief if they do not provide the means for their children's repentance.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Where is the word "mere" used?
> 
> Believing parents are given a prime opportunity to be the means of their children's conversion. Children of believers are more culpable for their unbelief because they have sinned against means. Believing parents become culpable for their children's unbelief if they do not provide the means for their children's repentance.



Concise and elegant as usual. You're right, by the way, I can hear your voice now as I read you. I'll try to type with a more proper accent.

Seriously, as critical as I've been of Wilson, it is not because I am unfamiliar with his work on the Christian family. I have read a number of his works, even used portions for studies on marriage and child-rearing. It is not all bad and there is some practical wisdom found therein.

Even before I thought Wilson was going in the wrong direction theologically, I would have warned a person to read him with a grain of salt and not completely drink the Koolaid in his writings. When he teaches, it is nigh impossible to distinguish between when he is exegeting a didactic principle from the Scriptures from when he is stating a "seems to me" opinion (however well founded in his own experience). In fact his opinions become the basis for further reflection so the text of Scripture is left even further behind. Because Wilson has no small degree of charisma, not all are able to separate where their consciences ought to be bound and where they shouldn't.

I honestly don't believe enough work has been done to link this issue of the family as the real genesis of the whole Federal Vision controversy. It really is the issue of Covenant Children that drives this issue. As has been noted, some of the criticisms of the laxity of Presbyterians regarding their covenant responsiblities is to blame. I would attend the OPC Junior and Senior High retreats a few years ago and only 1-2 out of a crowd of 300 young men and women could fill in the blank on catechism answers. Memorization is not a guarantor of regeneration but it does indicate a lack of family worship and instruction in the home.

Thus, you have Ministers and Elders with many apostate children and Churches that take no action because, after all, "...the children are not elect...", so what can these men do about it? That attitude is completely contrary to the Word regarding the subject of apostasy. God never blames Himself for unbelief. As Rev Winzer pointed out, He blames the unbeliever and He blames the parents. To say He ordained the reprobation of a child is rather like Adam reminding God that, after all, You gave me this woman. Read Psalm 78, which describes the cycle of apostasy as children are not taught the things of the Lord and then forget Him.

Now, as much as I agree with Wilson that the state of affairs in the Presbyterian Churches is lamentable (and not Reformed in their understanding of parental responsibility) his solution is not the correct one. As with most errors, the course correction is usually tacked too hard. It is my belief that they wanted to link the issue of parental responsibility too much to the nature of salvation as if the nature of God's election does not include such things as means and our responsibility to obey His Word. In the end, even the best parent will find ample failures on their part that, if weighed in the balance of perfection, would be reason for them to conclude that God does not "owe" them a redeemed child.

It needs to be enough for us to live according to the commands of the Scriptures to train our children (and to enjoin them to obey) without presuming upon the hidden counsel of God and change our Sacramentology and Soteriology to give us more assurance that our efforts will lead to the salvation of our child. In the process, in fact, as they have left the Confessional understanding of such things they have undermined the very Gospel that they should be pointing their children to!

Thus, be wary of Douglas Wilson's works. Because he has some good things to say in criticism of the modern Reformed Church, his work is very alluring. But because He prefers personal interpretation, converts Proverbs to didactic literature, and his opinions are indistinguishable from his exegesis, he leads his devotees down a path which ultimately abandons our Confessions. We need no more assurance than the true Gospel will provide and creating a category of faithfulness to make us feel better about those intervening years of a child's development, while we have to wait in faith, is drinking a poisonous Koolaid indeed!


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> You're right, by the way, I can hear your voice now as I read you. I'll try to type with a more proper accent.



Hopefully not like the croc hunter! And I'm reading you loud and clear too.

Also, I looked up "crikey" and it appears it is an expletive used instead of "Christ" or "For Christ's Sake." The Oxford English Dictionary says, "As this alliterates with Christ, or L. Christe! it was perhaps originally one of the alliterative or assonant substitutes for sacred names, used to avoid the appearance of profanity."

I think your analysis of Doug Wilson is spot on. You are right, we shouldn't blame God's secret counsel for our failures as parents.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Also, I looked up "crikey" and it appears it is an expletive used instead of "Christ" or "For Christ's Sake." The Oxford English Dictionary says, "As this alliterates with Christ, or L. Christe! it was perhaps originally one of the alliterative or assonant substitutes for sacred names, used to avoid the appearance of profanity."


Wow, I'll never be using that word again even in jest around Aussies.


----------



## Poimen

Well said Rich.

My concern is that some, perhaps in reaction to the unfaithfulness of previous generations (in instruction and discipline) have come to believe that the salvation of their children is dependent upon their faithfulness. 

As the article that Chris cited points out, there is no one-to-one correspondence between our rearing of our children and salvation. On the other hand we must maintain our parental responsibilties as we raise them in the nuture of the Lord. 

Perhaps we should all just re-read and commit ourselves to the (paedo) baptismal vows we made?


----------



## MW

Poimen said:


> Perhaps we should all just re-read and commit ourselves to the (paedo) baptismal vows we made?


----------



## brymaes

NaphtaliPress said:


> I haven't read the book, but it was reviewed back in the February 1998 issue of _The Blue Banner, _pages 8-9, and the reviewer writes: "Though the book contains much of value, both in the theory and practice of Biblical child raising, it is marred by the author’s misunderstanding of the gospel in making the salvation of covenant children depend upon the works of their parents." See the PDF archive, or the direct link.


For what it's worth, Wilson explicitly states in the first chapter that discipline is no substitute for regeneration...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bryan,

For what it's worth, it's not what he says out of one side of his mouth that is the problem.

It's what he says out of the other side.

Like I stated in another thread. He can state his full agreement with a Reformed Confession...and you think all is well...maybe I misunderstood him...and then he adds a qualifier.

Oh, and for the record, I read the Presbytery examination.


----------



## Robert Truelove

My trouble with Wilson's understanding of the covenant promises to the children of believers is that it equals, in all essence, the following equations...

Faithful Parents = Regenerate Children

Unregenerate Children = Unfaithful Parents

...leading to the conclusion...the children of believers who grow up to reject the gospel are the result of unfaithful parents. This puts the emphasis in the wrong place; parental works.

A Biblical equation looks like...

Faithful Parents = A Powerful Means of Grace to the Covenant Child

While parents who faithfully raise their children in the faith should be optimistically hopeful in regards to the salvation of their children, in the end it is all of grace; the doctrine of election stands. While regenerate children in faithful homes should be the rule rather than the exception, there are exceptions.

Conversely, parents who fail to raise their children faithfully in the faith, are offered no biblical hope for the salvation of their children beyond the hope we have for the conversion of pagans. Such parents have rejected the ordinary means of grace by which God saves the covenant child.

As a side note, I think in the above consideration of Wilson's teaching, we see the early seeds of FV theology (as Wilson was teaching this prior to teaching FV).


----------



## KMK

prespastor said:


> As a side note, I think in the above consideration of Wilson's teaching, we see the early seeds of FV theology (as Wilson was teaching this prior to teaching FV).



Very interesting! I wonder what would happen to Wilson's ministry and theology if it turned out that one of his children was an Esau?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Did Doug Wilson not hold, at one stage at least, that a man could not be an elder unless all his children were believers. However, I heard Brian Schwertley say that R.C. Sproul persuaded him that this could not be the case.

On such reasoning, we would have to suspend an elder if his wife had a baby, as we would know if the child had believed the gospel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Daniel,

As I stated above, I don't think this notion of believing children is completely outrageous as an expectation for elders.

The qualifications for elders includes both the godliness of wives and children. "How," one might ask "can an Elder be responsible for somebody else's behavior?" That's what the requirement for elders is, quite frankly.

The point of the "...if he cannot even manage his own household well..." drips with federal headship. Men are responsible for their homes. They are responsible for the things they are required before God to perform. They are not responsible for regeneration but they are responsible for diligence in leading their family to attend to the means of Grace. When children or wives are apostate, it is completely un-Biblical to throw up our hands and merely state: "Well, God just ordained it that way!" Of course God ordained it or it wouldn't have happened. The question is: was the abuse or laziness of the head of the household the means?

Thus, I would not create a 1 for 1 correlation between unbelief of a child and the actions of a parent but neither are we commanded to blithely state: "Well, God elected that child to be reprobate."

I actually don't believe the story about Sproul "convincing" Wilson otherwise because I don't see anything in Wilson that would deny the idea that a man ought to be removed from the Pastorate if his children or wife becomes apostate. In fact, on merely this point, I would not have a problem with his theology.

If an elder has an apostate child it ought to be a cause for investigation. I allow that it might be possible that the elder did all he could to teach, pray with, and model a Gospel-dependence for the child. The whole point of Paul, to Timothy and Titus, however, is that elders are _supposed_ to be the kind of men that you go to for counsel on such matters. The reasoning from Paul is sort of like: "Why would anyone trust you to oversee the entire Church if you cannot even oversee your family and see to _their_ piety?"

Thus, I want to reiterate that we find fault squarely where it lies: on the re-definition of Sacramentology and Soteriology. The re-definitions grow out of the above concern but they are not the solution to the concern they are attempting to address. One can fully maintain their commitment to the Reformed Confessions while upholding the high standard for elders.


----------



## KMK

Rich, what do you mean apostate?


----------



## wsw201

What Wilson teaches is "Covenant Succession". Its the idea that the ordinary way of salvation is through families. The Esau's and Ishmael's are the exceptions and the Isaac's and Jacob's are the rule. Robert Rayburn has a paper out on this and it became quite influential in some circles. Rayburn as well as Wilson gleaned much of their ideas based on Schenck's book. The basic idea is that if a child of the covenant falls away, its the fathers fault. In fact a former member of Wilson's church told me that an Elder resigned his position when he found out that his son had "fallen away". The son was not a child and was not living with his parents.


----------



## KMK

wsw201 said:


> What Wilson teaches is "Covenant Succession". Its the idea that the ordinary way of salvation is through families. The Esau's and Ishmael's are the exceptions and the Isaac's and Jacob's are the rule. Robert Rayburn has a paper out on this and it became quite influential in some circles. Rayburn as well as Wilson gleaned much of their ideas based on Schenck's book. The basic idea is that if a child of the covenant falls away, its the fathers fault. In fact a former member of Wilson's church told me that an Elder resigned his position when he found out that his son had "fallen away". The son was not a child and was not living with his parents.



How would Rayburn and Wilson catagorize a person who comes to the faith without believing parents? Is that an exception?


----------



## wsw201

KMK said:


> How would Rayburn and Wilson catagorize a person who comes to the faith without believing parents? Is that an exception?



Yes, they would be the exception to the rule.


----------



## KMK

wsw201 said:


> Yes, they would be the exception to the rule.



If so, it sounds like 'Covenant Succession' is a great viewpoint for those who like to see everything in balck and white.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KMK said:


> Rich, what do you mean apostate?



I mean the child is an unbeliever.

Again, I probably wouldn't say that an Elder *must* step down if one of their children is an unbeliever but the situation needs to be investigated in the same way if the wife of an elder suddenly leaves him.

I realize that election is not so immediately tied to family succession as to make salvation inevitable for "good parents".

What is missed here by those that would dismiss the whole concern by the excesses of others is the idea of leadership and responsibility. It is natural for me as a leader of men and women to understand what Paul's expectations are for elders. I've also seen, a million times, people that have lives that seem put together but their family life is a mess. If you want to get the real sense for a man, though, visit his home and see how he treats his wife and kids. Unhappy wives and rebellious children are not "accidents". A man might be able to fool a congregation but his family has to live with him.

This requirement for leadership is a very obvious one. What becomes a problem is when you start to backtrack from means to election and creating a doctrine based on this. It moves from the revealed things (the Word concerning requirements for Elders) to the hidden (God's decree of election). The Scriptures don't permit that connection but some desire to create doctrinal categories that allow it. Thus their Sacramentology and Soteriology are changed to sort of "force God's hand" on the issue of election and turn all the things that are monergistic (relating to union with Christ) and make them more cooperative.

I continue to maintain that a man can still be responsible for what he is charged with - love his wife and train his children. This does not imply he is responsible for their regeneration. The latter is where the FV crowd start to push. The former is what they're reacting against: namely, that many don't seem to recognize anymore that men have _any_ accountability for the state of their households. If you follow what I've read through the thread you'll see how the Church's lack of attention to emphasize accountability in men has been the seedbed for those who started by trying to recover it but went way too far in the process.


----------



## KMK

SemperFideles said:


> I mean the child is an unbeliever.



I assume you mean that the child _professes_ unbelief, for who can know whether a child is an unbeliever or not?



SemperFideles said:


> What is missed here by those that would dismiss the whole concern by the excesses of others is the idea of leadership and responsibility.



Who is 'dismissing the whole concern'?



SemperFideles said:


> If you follow what I've read through the thread you'll see how the Church's lack of attention to emphasize accountability in men has been the seedbed for those who started by trying to recover it but went way too far in the process.



Are you talking about something you read in this thread, or is there another one as well?

I'm all for elders having children that profess Christ, but I have even greater respect for a man whose children are faithful to their father _in spite_ of their unbelief. I do not think Paul teaches (in Tim and Tit anyway) that an elder must have anything but children that are faithful to their father. I agree that it would be the exception and not the rule that an elder that ruleth well would have apostate children. And that reminds me that I need to redouble my prayers for the salvation of my children!


----------



## Pilgrim

KMK said:


> I don't have the book in front of me but it sounds like he may be interpreting Tit 1:6 a little differently than most but there are some who do believe that verse refers to children who actually profess Christ. I don't agree with him but that interpretation is held by some.



And that interpretation is not limited to paedos either.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KMK said:


> I assume you mean that the child _professes_ unbelief, for who can know whether a child is an unbeliever or not?


Right.



> Who is 'dismissing the whole concern'?


Though I was responding to your question, I wasn't implying you said it.



> Are you talking about something you read in this thread, or is there another one as well?


I'm more generally explaining to any readers in general. I have a habit of responding to individual posts and making general observations that are not aimed at the person I quoted. I didn't meant to have you read my entire post existentially.



> I'm all for elders having children that profess Christ, but I have even greater respect for a man whose children are faithful to their father _in spite_ of their unbelief. I do not think Paul teaches (in Tim and Tit anyway) that an elder must have anything but children that are faithful to their father. I agree that it would be the exception and not the rule that an elder that ruleth well would have apostate children. And that reminds me that I need to redouble my prayers for the salvation of my children!


I don't know if I have any more or less respect for a believer if their father is an unbeliever. For my part, I would prefer a believing father as it is very painful otherwise. My larger point is that many downplay, far too much, the role and _responsibility_ of parents to present Christ to their children. Even in Presbyterian Churches, with a history of catechetical instruction, I'm amazed at the general apathy that most parents have about teaching and praying with their children. It's most reflected in men that are content to remain ignorant and feel no real burden to teach their families. Keep the kids in line? Yes. Teach them theology? That's what Sunday School is for. {Note: this is a general observation Ken and not aimed at you  }


----------



## KMK

SemperFideles said:


> My larger point is that many downplay, far too much, the role and _responsibility_ of parents to present Christ to their children. Even in Presbyterian Churches, with a history of catechetical instruction, I'm amazed at the general apathy that most parents have about teaching and praying with their children. It's most reflected in men that are content to remain ignorant and feel no real burden to teach their families. Keep the kids in line? Yes. Teach them theology? That's what Sunday School is for. {Note: this is a general observation Ken and not aimed at you  }



I agree with you and that is why I have a sympathetic attitude toward Sproul Jr, Wilson, and Phillips who are not necessarily held in high regard on PB. They helped pull me out of the malaise of which you speak. I wish that L. had written some books!


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> My larger point is that many downplay, far too much, the role and _responsibility_ of parents to present Christ to their children. Even in Presbyterian Churches, with a history of catechetical instruction, I'm amazed at the general apathy that most parents have about teaching and praying with their children. It's most reflected in men that are content to remain ignorant and feel no real burden to teach their families. Keep the kids in line? Yes. Teach them theology? That's what Sunday School is for. {Note: this is a general observation Ken and not aimed at you  }




Do you homeschool your kids?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> Do you homeschool your kids?



Yes, for now, although I'm not I'm not against the idea of a private school either. My point about teaching them is not that kids have to learn everything from their parents but parents are responsible for the training of their child - even when it is delegated to another.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Rich,
I am not seeing much difference in your position vs. Wilson besides you would keep accountability primarily only with the elders while he would basically hold the same standard to the laity.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

CT,

Sometimes I think I write too much but maybe I didn't clarify enough.

I stated that, if holding men accountable for the state of their households was the only issue, then I would not necessarily have a problem with his basic position. The way he goes about arguing for it sometimes is strained exegetically when he can make the point without turning Proverbial passages into didactic passages.

The real problem is when he, and others more so, start to confuse the means themselves with God's elective benefits. This is when conditional election is re-defined to mean that all Covenant children participate in some of the benefits of the Elect (forgiveness of sins, union with Christ, etc) but only enjoy those benefits _in a sense_.

In brief, the difference between he and I is that I believe the Confessions speak plainly and fully on who receives the benefits of union with Christ - the Elect alone. Those joined to the visible administration of the Covenant do not participate, in any sense, in those benefits. We do not know who they are but it is yet important to maintain that Covenant membership does not mean that we are automatically "in Christ" until we apostasize.

I realize we seem close on our positions but the gulf is very large. Don't focus on the fact that we both agree that men ought to be held responsible for the spiritual well-being of the household. I repeatedly maintain that God elects according to the hidden counsel of His Will but His means have always included households. I also maintain that the Scriptures are replete with warnings to parents that children apostasize because they are not trained. To simply maintain that a child is not elect is an obvious fact at that point but it never lets the parent "off the hook" for being a means even to reprobation.


----------



## Archlute

The use of the term 'pistos' in the pastoral epistles regarding the children of elders is best taken as 'faithful' rather than 'believing'. Most of my commentaries are packed right now, but I believe it was a study of that term/passage in either the WBC by Mounce, or the NIGTC by Knight, that layed out a very convincing exegetical argument in favor of understanding it as 'faithful'.

Also, regarding the Covenant Successionism of Rayburn/Wilson/Schenk, there is an article written by prof. Alan Strange in the Mid-America Reformed Journal that gives a sound critique of that view in light of confessional Calvinism. He basically calls it an 'ex opere operato' view of parenting. There's much more to the argument than that, but that's the jab.


----------



## Archlute

One thing that a former prof of mine had to say about the CS view is that it has too high an expectation of parental ability, and too low a view of God's grace. He thought that if the supporters of that notion actually took a close look at even the most upright of minister's parental lapses, there could be found more than enough to damn any of his children - if salvation was rested upon our parenting and not upon God's sovereign and gracious choice.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Archlute said:


> The use of the term 'pistos' in the pastoral epistles regarding the children of elders is best taken as 'faithful' rather than 'believing'. Most of my commentaries are packed right now, but I believe it was a study of that term/passage in either the WBC by Mounce, or the NIGTC by Knight, that layed out a very convincing exegetical argument in favor of understanding it as 'faithful'.
> 
> Also, regarding the Covenant Successionism of Rayburn/Wilson/Schenk, there is an article written by prof. Alan Strange in the Mid-America Reformed Journal that gives a sound critique of that view in light of confessional Calvinism. He basically calls it an 'ex opere operato' view of parenting. There's much more to the argument than that, but that's the jab.





Archlute said:


> One thing that a former prof of mine had to say about the CS view is that it has too high an expectation of parental ability, and too low a view of God's grace. He thought that if the supporters of that notion actually took a close look at even the most upright of minister's parental lapses, there could be found more than enough to damn any of his children - if salvation was rested upon our parenting and not upon God's sovereign and gracious choice.



In case it's not clear, I agree with both of the above. I think I've stated twice that I don't think an unbelieving child automatically disqualifies a minister. I DO think the situation needs to be investigated and not blithely dismissed as is the habit of some.

I think the latter point is important. I've said this before that we can always look at our efforts, however well intentioned, and conclude that we did not do what we were commanded to do (as if we had the perfection of Christ in our parenting). This is why I maintain that we always give God the glory for the salvation of our children but cannot blame _Him_ for their apostasy. It's a thing that drives you to your knees.


----------



## Archlute

Sorry if you thought I was directing all that at you specifically, Rich. I had just been skimming the posts, and wanted to toss in a few thoughts. 

I agree with you that God can never be blamed for the unbelief of a child, nor should we take a poor home life lightly.

Hope that clears things up.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Archlute said:


> Sorry if you thought I was directing all that at you specifically, Rich. I had just been skimming the posts, and wanted to toss in a few thoughts.
> 
> I agree with you that God can never be blamed for the unbelief of a child, nor should we take a poor home life lightly.
> 
> Hope that clears things up.



Adam,

Phew, I was kind of tied up this AM and waited a bit too long to go for a 6 mile run. It was _hot_ outside this AM.

I actually didn't think you were directing at me. I really did appreciate the insight. I think it kind of provided a really nice wrapper to everything I was saying. There might have been some who thought I might disagree and I was trying to bring it in and show how it is compatible with what I was saying. 

I like the way you put it with _ex opere operato_. With respect to our responsibilities and God's activity I prefer to leave that connection in the counsel of God. Even people that haven't taken the FV plunge will glom on to the whole Covenant child-rearing thing a bit too much and make that the central focus of their Christianity. I could write for hours about some of the subtle things that I've seen that capture people's attention instead of the Gospel that begin with good intentions.


----------



## bookslover

I remember hearing John MacArthur say once that, if one of his adult sons (at the time he spoke, all four of his children were grown and had homes of their own) robbed a bank, he (MacArthur) felt that he should resign his ministry. I remember thinking at the time, "Well, that's pretty stupid," since the Bible plainly teaches (in Ezekiel 18, for example) that all individuals are responsible for their own sins, not those of someone else. 

Parents have a responsibility under God to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, but there are no guarantees that this will _necessarily_ lead to their salvation, since not all children born to Christian parents are numbered among the elect.

In the case of an elder who has a child (or children) who are not believers, inquiries can be made. If the elder and his wife have been diligent before the Lord in their parental responsibilities, and the kid(s) still "go bad," well, the elder is not to be held responsible for that.

I realize that no one has said anything different, I'm just throwing my  in there.


----------



## KMK

Archlute said:


> The use of the term 'pistos' in the pastoral epistles regarding the children of elders is best taken as 'faithful' rather than 'believing'.



Yeah...like the KJV.


----------

