# Fact checking a quote from David Engelsma on what some Reformed churches say about infant baptism



## JTB.SDG (Feb 15, 2018)

David Engelsma in his book, The Covenant of God and the children of believers says that traditionally, Reformed Churches have taken 3 views of God's promise to the children of believers in Genesis 17:7. He says the first view sees the promise as actually only a PRIVILEGE. The second sees the promises as only an OFFER. While the third actually sees God's promise as a true promise, only to the elect seed within the physical seed.

I can find a lot of others affirm what he says about the second view, and how some traditionally in the Reformed churches have taken varient stances on a "conditional offer" to the children of believers; the most extreme being sort of a form of Arminianism.

I'm trying to *fact check* the first proposition. This is what he writes. Is it actually true? Thanks:

"There are three possible explanations of the inclusion of children in the covenant. All are proposed by various Reformed churches.

The first explanation is that because of their privileged position in a Christian home and in the environment of the church these children are more likely to be converted than the children of unbelievers. . .they are in a better position to be saved than other children. This was the view of some Puritans and of Jonathan Edwards. It is the view of certain Reformed churches today, including the Free Reformed Church of North America and the Netherlands Reformed Congregations of the United States and Canada."

If this is true, can anyone lead me to any actual primary sources?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Feb 15, 2018)

I don't know so much about the Netherlands Reformed, but I would venture that this is a caricature of the Free Reformed Churches of North America. I was once part of a doctoral committee examining a FRCNA minister on his dissertation regarding infant baptism. His dissertation doesn't say what Engelsma says the FRCNA believes and during the defence he said something to the effect that "there can be a difference between what God promises and what is actually given." In other words, there are FRCNA ministers who hold to the second position. Maybe Jerrold Lewis can offer more insights...


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 15, 2018)

From the FRCNA website:


> The children of believing parents, by virtue of belonging to the believing community and given the sign and seal of the covenant, are to be taught their covenant obligations of faith and repentance. This occurs through their covenant privileges such as receiving a Christian upbringing and parental instruction and further education through faithful preaching of the Word, Sunday school, catechism classes, youth bible study groups, all teaching them that the Lord is seeking and calling them. It is for this reason that we make provision for their instruction in the promises and the demands of the covenant of grace.



In my opinion, Engelsma is giving a caricature of their view; however, in general, I think that saying that they hold that the covenant status is primarily one of privilege to unconverted children is an accurate summary of the FRCNA's position.


----------

