# Is the salvation of children the necessary result of "blameless Covenant nuture"?



## Dan.... (May 25, 2005)

I was reading an article by a Presbyterian minister, Robert Rayburn, "THE PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN, COVENANT NURTURE AND COVENANT SUCCESSION", located at http://www.faithtacoma.org/covenant.htm . In this article the author says, 


> It is to be noted, finally, that *nowhere does the Scripture suggest the contrary, that blameless parental nurture might still result in one's children growing up to a life of unbelief.* [It is not enough to imply, as is often done, that taking with full seriousness the suspension of the fulfillment of the promise to the children upon the faithfulness of the parents somehow undermines the sovereignty of grace. Bruce Ray writes: 'Neither reading the Bible nor praying will bring a man to salvation unless God is pleased to do a mighty work of grace within his heart. So it is with our children. We can administer the rod under God's authority with all firmness, and with all persevering consistency in a context of love, and it will come to nothing unless God works a work of grace in their hearts. ...We can never assume that if we properly raise our children they will automatically be Christians. There are too many examples in the Scriptures of godly parents who had wicked offspring.' Withhold not Correction, p. 67. But that is a misstatement of the case in more ways than in his speaking of covenant children 'automatically' becoming Christians, an idea it would be very difficult to demonstrate has ever been held by any Christian writer, much less Reformed one. The question is not whether a parent is godly, but whether he or she was faithful in the matter of parenthood. Even the most godly of men and women fall short in many ways. And *where does the Scripture ever suggest that a blameless nurture could end in a son or daughter's unbelief?* The texts which Ray cites as teaching the responsibility of parents seem rather explicitly to exclude that possibility. It is highly significant that not once in his entire book devoted to the spiritual nurture and discipline of Christians' children, does Ray ever appeal to the promise of God to be our children's God. But to put parental obligations ahead of or to consider them in isolation from a divine promise is to place works before faith. That promise may indeed be suspended upon conditions, as are all the promises of the gospel, conditions which divine grace will ensure are fulfilled in the case of the elect, but there remains the promise of God. It is a false disjunction to pit that promise against the sovereignty of grace. It is to doubt God's Word to believe that His promise will not be kept even if the required conditions are met. Grace does not abolish conditions, it fulfils them. The appeal to Jacob and Esau does not serve the purpose. It is not at all clear that the two sons were similarly nurtured in the faith or that either one was given a godly upbringing. God's grace may well cover many parental sins. His promise only constrains him to crown his own gift when, by his grace, parents raise their children faithfully in the love and fear of God. Why in the same family one believes and another does not can often be accounted for by the different nurture or example each received. Joseph did not receive the same upbringing as his brothers. There are many factors, however, which are known and can be weighed only by God. On the 'divinely constituted relation between the piety of parents and that of their children' and on the conditionality of the divine promise to be the God of believers' children, cf. Hodge, 'Bushnell on Christian Nurture,' pp. 504Â­507 and Atwater, 'The Children of the Church and Sealing Ordinances,' pp. 16Â­17. The whole point was put in a more homely way by the mother of Wilhelmus a Brakel, the celebrated figure of the Dutch Nadere Reformatie. Brakel himself often acknowledged that he could not recollect a time in his life when he was an unbeliever, having trusted in the Lord from his mother's breasts. His biographer notes that the principle of grace, which had been so early implanted in his heart by the Spirit of God, was nurtured by the faithful instruction, discipline, and godly example of his parents, especially their prayers. His mother prayed so incessantly that her son would walk with God that, he remembers her frequently saying to him, 'O, what you will have to answer for, if you do not fear God!' F.J. Los, Wlihelmus A Brakel, reprinted, Leiden, 1991, pp. 25Â­26.]



First, am I understanding the author correctly to be saying that "blameless parental nurture " will necessarily result in the salvation of the child?

Second, is this a majority position among those who hold to Presumptive Regeneration, or is this a minority position?


----------



## wsw201 (May 25, 2005)

To your first question, yes he does. 

To the second question, I can't really answer because I don't buy into PR.

For what it's worth, I think his overall argument is lame.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> To your first question, yes he does.
> 
> To the second question, I can't really answer because I don't buy into PR.
> ...



Yep.

And this would one of the troubling areas of Rayburn's Systematic.


----------



## AdamM (May 25, 2005)

Even as one who rejects presumed regeneration, I do think it's important to make the distinction between pr and the doctrine of covenant succession that Rayburn promotes. 



> The appeal to Jacob and Esau does not serve the purpose. It is not at all clear that the two sons were similarly nurtured in the faith or that either one was given a godly upbringing.



Huh?????



> 10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 * Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad"”in order that God's purpose in election might stand: * 12 not by works but by him who calls"”she was told, "The older will serve the younger."13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
> 
> 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 25, 2005)

"Blameless" would imply perfection. In that, I would agree. Perfection only comes from God. If the capacity of the nurture were _perfect_, the result would also be perfect.


----------



## govols (May 25, 2005)

But is perfection equal to salvation?

The result of perfect nurturing will equal salvation??


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 25, 2005)

Perfect nurture would only come from God...........man is incapable of producing a nurture that is perfect.


----------



## govols (May 25, 2005)

You da man.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Perfect nurture would only come from God...........man is incapable of producing a nurture that is perfect.



I like the way you put that. . . . it fits right in with the proverb that says, "train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it" . . .

If a child is saved because of godly childrearing, the child is not saved because of "parental works" . . . rather, the child is saved via God keeping a promise HE made in His Word. . . . .and like Scott said, that kind of parenting is impossible, unless God graciously brought it about in the first place. --- In other words, it's all God.


----------



## AdamM (May 25, 2005)

Brothers, here is a helpful excerpt from a larger article written by Rev. Rick Phillips (PCA.) I think he makes some good points in regard to keeping a balanced perspective on the issue. 

http://tinyurl.com/2hgtt



> A THEOLOGY OF COVENANT CHILDREN
> When you ask those who are trying to rewrite covenant theology what concerns are driving them, as I have had the opportunity to do first-hand with some of them, you will inevitably hear them address the subject of covenant children. This is where many of us will most resonate with them, because of our shared concern for non-covenantal views of children that seemingly dominate today. For many evangelicals, until a child has had a dramatic conversion experience they are considered pagans within their own Christian homes. Some Christian children are taught not to say the Lord's prayer and not to call God "our Father." In many churches, children are not allowed in the worship service until they "come of age."
> 
> It is in response to this that many turn to covenant theology to take a vastly more positive view of children growing up in Christian homes and in the church. Douglas Wilson writes, "In a very real way, this debate is a debate over the theology of children. This is important because in the American church our theology of children is overwhelmingly baptistic, even in paedo-baptist communions." He cites the attitude of 19th century Southern Presbyterian theologian, Henry Thornwell, who said the Church must treat her children "precisely as she treats all other impenitent and unbelieving men - she is to exercise the power of the keys, and shut them out from the communion of the saints." 38
> ...



[Edited on 5-25-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## govols (May 25, 2005)

I am not a Presbyterian so I must ask the question.

If the Presbyterians (sorry to shorten it so much) view infant baptism as a major sacrament then why so much rift? If it is scriptural, straight forward, then why isn't there an agreement? Presbyterians are reformed, Calvinistic.

Baptists, as a whole, aren't reformed but some are, so the rift can easily be seen in things there.

The catechisms and confessions are all followed aren't they?

Just wondering. Not a loaded question.

I can cut and paste in a new topic if needed.


----------



## wsw201 (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by govols_
> I am not a Presbyterian so I must ask the question.
> 
> If the Presbyterians (sorry to shorten it so much) view infant baptism as a major sacrament then why so much rift? If it is scriptural, straight forward, then why isn't there an agreement? Presbyterians are reformed, Calvinistic.
> ...



Because there is always someone who wants to be novel. Regarding Wilson, he is not a Presbyterian.


----------



## AdamM (May 25, 2005)

Another observation regarding covenant succession I have is that every time I read the stuff, I smell the noxious odor of congruent merit wafting out of the computer monitor. Do whatever is in your power and God will do the rest.... What a different paradigm that is from approach that Westminster 16 takes regarding our works: 



> IV. They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.
> 
> V. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins, but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they are good, they proceed from his Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God´s judgment.



[Edited on 5-25-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 25, 2005)

> It is in response to this that many turn to covenant theology to take a vastly more positive view of children growing up in Christian homes and in the church.



This is frightening; if people are coming over to CT based upon this, it is quite possible that they are unregenerate as they do not have a clue.

Men are called to faith. God commands and we obey. He promises and we believe! The example of Esau and his brother is irrelevant in this regard. Did Isaac react any differently? No! He acknowledged the promise of God and responded accordingly; in faith. That was his job. He knew in advance Esau's position:

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger." 

Yet, he didn't treat him any differently:

Gen 27:3 Now then, take your weapons, your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field and hunt game for me, 
Gen 27:4 and prepare for me delicious food, such as I love, and bring it to me so that I may eat, that my soul may bless you before I die." 

In fact, he kept with the protocol; he wanted to lay the blessing on the older son.


----------



## Poimen (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > It is in response to this that many turn to covenant theology to take a vastly more positive view of children growing up in Christian homes and in the church.
> ...



Curious: What protocol? Middle Eastern tradition of the elder son receiving the heritage?


----------



## wsw201 (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> "Blameless" would imply perfection. In that, I would agree. Perfection only comes from God. If the capacity of the nurture were _perfect_, the result would also be perfect.



Blameless may imply perfection, but that is not what Rayburn is getting at. 

Scott, if Zoe falls away from the faith its your fault and the Church should discipline you for it. That is what Rayburn is getting at. 

There was a family in our church who took this position to the extreme and said that one of the Elders in his previous church would be responsible for his grand kids sins, which would cause him to resign his position as Elder (BTW, the church was in Idaho, hint, hint.)


----------



## Dan.... (May 25, 2005)

> "Blameless" would imply perfection. In that, I would agree. Perfection only comes from God. If the capacity of the nurture were perfect, the result would also be perfect.



The consequence of this line of reasoning makes the promise of God practically void. "I will be a God to you and your descendants after you, so long as you perfectly nuture them." No man has ever perfectly nutured their offspring, hence, the promised reward applies to no one, not even Abraham.

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> > "Blameless" would imply perfection. In that, I would agree. Perfection only comes from God. If the capacity of the nurture were perfect, the result would also be perfect.
> ...



Dan, 
The only way anyone is able to rear their children according to Gods command is with Gods help, period. That help is Perfect!


----------



## Poimen (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



No you're wrong. The church was in Russia. 

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



I believe it was Moscow! :bigsmile:


----------



## Dan.... (May 25, 2005)

Adam,

Thanks for posting the article by Pastor Phillips.

That was a good read.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



There are many references to 'first-born' in scripture..........


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Yes but according to God's command or NE culture? In other words, I don't see how this event is relevant to the topic at hand. But maybe I am missing something in your posts (or in scripture)...


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

And it seems to me that if Isaac knew the position of Esau in advance he should have blessed Jacob with the older's sons blessing, precisely because of what God said.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> And it seems to me that if Isaac knew the position of Esau in advance he should have blessed Jacob with the older's sons blessing, precisely because of what God said.



Agreed; so why did'nt he?


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Good question. I don't know. I could speculate and say that he favored his son Esau, whereas Rachel favored Jacob. This seems to be the most plausible explanation. This of course would be a sin, but there is no indication that Isaac knew that Jacob would have the pre-eminence since God told that to Rachel and not Isaac. Maybe she told him, but we don't know that. 

So if this was the case then Isaac was simply following protocol, as you said, to bless Esau but my point was that this is not inherently godly or God instructed, but a custom of the time and place.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 26, 2005)

Daniel,
Can you imagine. God speaks to Rachel and she doesn't tell her husband. The truth of the matter is that Isaac saw Esau as:
1) a covenant child
2) First Born

His intent was not any different to his son Esau (even though he was aware). My point is, God commands and we obey.

Here is what I previously said:



> This is frightening; if people are coming over to CT based upon this, it is quite possible that they are unregenerate as they do not have a clue.
> 
> Men are called to faith. God commands and we obey. He promises and we believe! The example of Esau and his brother is irrelevant in this regard. Did Isaac react any differently? No! He acknowledged the promise of God and responded accordingly; in faith. That was his job. He knew in advance Esau's position:
> 
> ...


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Daniel,
> Can you imagine. God speaks to Rachel and she doesn't tell her husband. The truth of the matter is that Isaac saw Esau as:
> 1) a covenant child
> ...



God speaks to Rachel and she doesn't tell her husband? Improbable but not impossible. The text doesn't say. 

In any case, I have no disagreement with your point about how Isaac viewed Esau. Ditto on both points. But I question whether or not his view of Esau being first born is really relevant to the debate in this thread since I see that in the context of ANE thinking, but not necessarily biblical or covenantal thinking per se. After all, isn't that precisely why God marks out Isaac and Jacob contra Ishmael and Esau because of the cultural context, and contra it?


----------

