# Question for PE's and..........



## Roldan (Jun 10, 2005)

I have a question for those who hold to the Presumptive elected view and to those who take the position that our children are mere covenant members no more no less.

Does that then mean that your child is a pagan/heathen covenant memeber? Is that no better than an unbelieving spouse or a crack dealer on the corner who is marked as elect?


----------



## Dan.... (Jun 10, 2005)

No.

My child (whether or not regenerate or elect) is in covenant with God.

The idea of a "heathen covenant member" is an oxymoron.

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 10, 2005)

I guess the question, more precisely put, is how do we treat our covenant children? No, I am not a paedocommunist. That's not what I am getting at.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I guess the question, more precisely put, is how do we treat our covenant children? No, I am not a paedocommunist. That's not what I am getting at.



We treat our covenant children as needing the means of grace, but we have confidence because of the promise (more than the casting of the Word at large) that they will respond.

But the PE view, we still need to see fruit of salvation in our children. We do not accept "lack of obvious rebellion" as sign of salvation.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 10, 2005)

But there are covenant children who die in their sins, right?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> But there are covenant children who die in their sins, right?



Yes. The reality that there are covenant breakers is what prompts the PE advocate to see fruit in his children, and not to rest in mere absence of obvious rebellion.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> But there are covenant children who die in their sins, right?



Could you clarify who you are referring to? Do you mean, are there covenant children who go to hell when dying as infants? Then no. I would refer you to the Effectual calling chapter in the WCF. If you mean that there may be covenant children who grow up and show no fruit of faith, and then die, then yes. They may be in hell with Esau.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 10, 2005)

> If you mean that there may be covenant children who grow up and show no fruit of faith, and then die, then yes.



That's what I meant.


----------



## Roldan (Jun 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> No.
> 
> My child (whether or not regenerate or elect) is in covenant with God.
> ...



Yes it is an oxymoron and thats what I was getting at. If the child is not presumed regenerate then he must be then looked at as a child that is in the covenant but at the same time totally depraved(opposite of regenerate) and in the status of a heathen. But we paedo baptist want to look at our children as little christians and disciple them as if regenerate but on the other hand say they are just unregenerate so shouldn't we then not catechize but evangelize our children as the baptist would tell us?

Fred says:



> But the PE view, we still need to see fruit of salvation in our children. We do not accept "lack of obvious rebellion" as sign of salvation.




Again why are you discipling a totally depraved child that cannot understand the things of the spirit of God?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 14, 2005)




----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



Actually, Patrick, could you clarify what you mean by "covenant children" in this case? If you mean children in the invisible Covenant of Grace, I fully agree. If, however, you mean that all children dying in infancy as members of the visible covenant of grace go to heaven, I would have to take issue both with our biblical certainty of that as well as the Confession's support of it. The chapter on Effectual Calling states, "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases." But all _visible covenant_ children dying in infancy are not _necessarily_ elect, though we presume them to be as we disciple them through the means of grace.



> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> Fred says:
> 
> 
> ...



As Fred likewise said above, we are discipling them with the means of grace because we believe because of God's promise that they will in time respond to them - and it is specifically _through the Word_ that the Spirit eventually regenerates people (as Fred showed nicely in pages 8 and 9 of this thread), which is why we have purpose and hope in exposing them to the Word as presumed elect persons.

Similarly, the sacraments are means of grace, the Spirit's impartation of grace through the Supper is tied to the particular time the sacrament is administered (which is why it is administered repeatedly), whereas His impartation of grace through baptism is not tied to the time of administration (which is why it is administered only once), which is why the latter is appropriate for infants presumed to be elect but not regenerate, but the former is not.


----------



## Roldan (Jun 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> As Fred likewise said above, we are discipling them with the means of grace because we believe because of God's promise that they will in time respond to them - and it is specifically _through the Word_ that the Spirit eventually regenerates people (as Fred showed nicely in pages 8 and 9 of this thread), which is why we have purpose and hope in exposing them to the Word as presumed elect persons.




Ahhh, so you admit then that they are Covenant members but depraved heathens until they respond to the Covenant requirement of Faith eventually IF elect?

If so then are you not then just evangelizing them through teaching them what the Word says like the baptist?


----------



## Augusta (Jun 14, 2005)

The "evangel" being the gospel of Jesus Christ, yes we evangelize our children. We also give them the covenant sign when they are babies just as our forebears did. 

We are adopted into Israel and carry on as part of the true vine with a better sacrifice,a new and better High Priest, and inherit the same promises that they did bearing the new covenant sign. 

We are still that "holy nation." That "royal priesthood." The promises are still to us and our household.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 14, 2005)

Again, the difference from the Baptist is that we claim to have biblically-grounded faith that they will in time _respond_ to the means of grace, which is also why we include baptism as one of those means alongside the Word, since, like the Word being preached, its efficacy is not specifically limited to the time at which it is administered. The Baptist does not claim to have that faith of eventual responding, which is why their discipling to their children is indeed, from their perspective, no different than discipling any heathen on the street. But the faith that our children will _in time_ show signs of regeneration by responding to the means of grace is a major part of what gives our discipling purpose, since after all, normative regeneration is specifically wrought through the Word.


----------



## Roldan (Jun 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Again, the difference from the Baptist is that we claim to have biblically-grounded faith that they will in time _respond_ to the means of grace, which is also why we include baptism as one of those means alongside the Word, since, like the Word being preached, its efficacy is not specifically limited to the time at which it is administered. The Baptist does not claim to have that faith of eventual responding, which is why their discipling to their children is indeed, from their perspective, no different than discipling any heathen on the street. But the faith that our children will _in time_ show signs of regeneration by responding to the means of grace is a major part of what gives our discipling purpose, since after all, normative regeneration is specifically wrought through the Word.




HMMMM, Thanx for your response man.


----------



## Myshkin (Jun 14, 2005)

For those who hold the PR position, would you mind reading "Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism" (do a Google search) and commenting on it? It has several parts to it (I think 6 or 7), but isn't that long of a read.

Please keep up the debate, I personally have been edified by this fruitful discussion, and am being sharpened.


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 14, 2005)

One of the key verses that seems to come up in regards to any type of presumption is 1 Cor 7:14. Charles Hodge, in his commentary on 1 Cor. notes this regarding 7:14:




> 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
> 
> "œThe proof that such marriages may properly be continued, is, that the unbelieving party is sanctified by the believing; and the proof that such is the fact, is, that by common consent their children are holy; which could not be, unless the marriages whence they sprang were holy; or unless the principle that intimate communion with the holy renders holy, were a correct principle.
> The assertion of the apostle is, that the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified in virtue of the marriage relation with a believer. We have already seen that the word (agiazein), to sanctify, means, 1. To cleanse. 2. To render morally pure. 3. To consecrate, to regard as sacred, and hence, to reverence or to hallow. Examples of the use of the word in the third general sense just mention, are to be found in all parts of Scripture. Any person or thing consecrated to God, or employed in his service, is said to be sanctified. Thus, particular days appropriated to his service, the temple, its utensils, the sacrifices, the priest, the whole theocratical people, are called holy. Persons or things not thus consecrated are called profane, common, or unclean. To transfer any person or thing from this latter class to the former, is to sanctify him or it. What God hath cleansed (or sanctified), that call not thou common," Acts 10:15. Every creature of God is good, and is to be received with thanksgiving, "œFor it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer," 1 Tim. 4:5. This use of the word is specifically frequent in application to persons and communities. The Hebrew people were sanctified (i.e. consecrated), by being selected from other nations and devoted to the service of the true God. They were, therefore constantly called holy. All who joined them, or who were intimately connected with them, became in the same sense, holy. Their children were holy; so were their wives. "œIf the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are also the branches," Rom. 11:26. That is, if the parents be holy, so are also the children. Any child, the circumstances of whose birth secured it a place within the pale of the theocracy, or commonwealth of Israel, was according to the constant usage of Scripture, said to be holy. In none of these cases does the word express any subjective or inward change. A lamb consecrated as a sacrifice, and therefore holy, did not differ in its nature from any other lamb. The priests or people, holy in the sense of set apart to the service of god, were in their inward state the same as other men. Children born within the theocracy, and therefore holy, were nonetheless conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity. They were by nature the children of wrath, even as others, Eph. 2:3. When therefore, it is said that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, the meaning is not that they are rendered inwardly holy, nor that they are brought under a sanctifying influence, but that they were sanctified by their intimate union with a believer, just as the temple sanctified the gold connect with it; or the altar the gift laid upon it, Matt. 23:17, 19. The sacrifice in itself was merely a part of the body of a lamb, laid upon the altar, though it´s internal nature remained the same, it became something sacred. Thus the pagan husband in virtue of his union with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was sanctified; he assumed a new relation; he was set apart to the service of God, as the guardian of one of his chosen ones, and as the parent of children who, in virtue of their believing mother were children of the covenant.
> ...



Though there are quotes that lead one to believe that Hodge was PR and some that he was PE, these coments on 7:14 do not prove either point.


----------



## Roldan (Jun 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Again, the difference from the Baptist is that we claim to have biblically-grounded faith that they will in time _respond_ to the means of grace



I just caught this and wanted to comment on it again.

Does not the Reformed Baptist say the same thing in other words?

The Baptist would say that they teach and disciple their kids so that one day they will respond in faith but we both (paedo credo) agree that its up to God's Sovereign choice.

So whats the difference again?

or would you say that the baptist are incosistent and should go ahead and presume them elect and give them the sign?

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by Roldan]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



From my experience, on this board and elsewhere, Reformed Baptists of course _hope_ that their children will respond, just as they hope the heathen on the street will respond. But the Reformed Baptist does _not_ believe that we have a promise and a biblical warrant to go a step further and _presume_ that the children will respond any more than we do to presume such of the heathen on the street.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Roldan_
> ...



But then if we only presume election, wouldn't we just preach the gospel until they professed? People aren't saved *usually* through devotionals etc....they are saved by the preaching of the gospel. Is that how we should raise our children? Or should we teach them the entire council of God as the leaders in the church do for the congregation? Do we treat them as if they will EVENTUALLY understand what we are telling them, or do we treat them as if they DO or ARE understanding the Word of God?

Just asking.


----------



## Roldan (Jun 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...




Yeah that too, what he  said


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> But then if we only presume election, wouldn't we just preach the gospel until they professed? People aren't saved *usually* through devotionals etc....they are saved by the preaching of the gospel. Is that how we should raise our children? Or should we teach them the entire council of God as the leaders in the church do for the congregation? Do we treat them as if they will EVENTUALLY understand what we are telling them, or do we treat them as if they DO or ARE understanding the Word of God?
> 
> Just asking.



The gospel is always to be preached, even if you'v ebeen a Christian for 60 years. It not only saves, but sanctifies. We are prone to forget and must be reminded over and over again what Christ has done for us. Our children must be raised to be Christians. They are disciples. This is what Thornwell called the "heir-apparent" model. They are heirs of the kingdom, and must be raised accordingly. Once they demonstrate they have embraced their inheritance (faith in Christ with a consistent profession, not just the absense of outward rebellion), then we bring them into communion. We teach them what they ought to know and do, the whole counsel of God's Word. The law requires obedience whether capable of obeying or not. The child's inability is no obstacle to teaching them their duty to the God who has set them apart from the world for that purpose. Ideally, they will see their inability, God will use their struggle to bring them to faith, a conversion experience. Notice, I did not say a "dramatic" conversion experience so don't even start with the "revivalistic" strawmen.


----------



## Myshkin (Jun 15, 2005)

Those of the PR position have been listed several times; would someone mind listing some of those who hold to the PE view?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Those of the PR position have been listed several times; would someone mind listing some of those who hold to the PE view?



A.A. Hodge, Thornwell, Dabney, Edwards, and A' Brakel come to mind at present.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...





I would only add that in a family that recognizes God's personal presence through His Spirit, both in the house and in the heart, there can hardly help but be an awareness of that in the children as well. It is not just the preaching, but the practice in the family that comes out of truly believing what is preached. 

Actually, reading this over again, I see that Patrick already implied this. Sorry for the repeat.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



No strawmen here! 

My point wasn't that we aren't supposed to continue preaching the gospel, essentially that is what is done everytime we take the Lord's Supper. 

My point is that PR seems to be a little more consistent with the practice of most Christian families. I don't know of many that will not let their children pray. Do you let your children pray? If you do, then do you presume that God hears them? Scripture says time and time again that God does not hear the prayers of unregenerates. They have no mediator (at this point at least) by which to approach the throne of grace! (at least from the PE perspective). 

From my experience, it seems as if Christian families treat their children as little Christians, able to understand and believe the Word of God, pray to God, live a godly life (by the help of the Holy Spirit) etc. etc., but it seems to be a consistent PE, all of this (outside the preaching of the gospel) would only be heaping coals on their head. I sure wouldn't let me child pray if I presumed he didn't have a mediator! What kind of God would he be praying to?


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 15, 2005)

Jeff,

One does not have to believe PR or PE to allow children to pray. As C. Hodge notes in his commentary on 1 Cor 7:14, children of Christians are Christians because they are born into the commonwealth of the visible church. When the church has a corporate prayer of confession, we do not tell folks that their children can not participate in that prayer.


----------



## AdamM (Jun 15, 2005)

Freinds, I wanted to share an essay below that I frequently read which deals with some of these same questions in a context that I find very helpful (written by the Rev. Bob Vincent of Grace Presbyterian Church in Alexandria, Lousiana).


http://tinyurl.com/aampy



> Raising Children for God
> Reflections from over the Hill
> 
> After we had been married for several years, God gave Sandy and me our first child, a precious little girl whom we named Lydia; she was named after the biblical character "œwhose heart the Lord opened to pay attention to the things being spoken by Paul." (Acts 16:14.) In deciding to name her Lydia, we were setting about to remind her and ourselves that she needed a sovereign work of grace in order to believe the gospel.
> ...


----------

