# Can children of believers be "separated unto the Lord" in any sense without a specific covenantal pr



## Me Died Blue (Jan 31, 2005)

In another thread, it was recently stated by Randy, a credobaptist, that



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I believe my children are separated unto the Lord already just by their having a father who is converted and charged with raising them in the fear and admonition of the Lord.



I don't see how that statement can hold up in a credobaptist system. Because of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace, it is impossible for anyone to move an inch in the direction of seeing and coming to the Lord without sovereign, monergistic regeneration. So unless the children of believers have a specific covenantal promise of spiritual favor and blessing from God, how can their simply being raised in a Christian home and environment be thought to have any hopeful effect on their hearts?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 31, 2005)

You know what's intresting about this? Our adopted daughter was baptized as a small girl (4 years old maybe) by her Lutheran parents. Then at 8 years old they proceeded to ignore her, lock her in her room, not feed her, etc.

Now we have her and it is taking some *SERIOUS* work, prayer, love, and support to teach her anything of God as being acceptable and profitable to her.

So she was "brought into the covenant" as a child according to the standard correct? But then the treatment she recieved alienated her in such a way that she's pretty much out of the covenant completely, or appears to be.

Pray for her please.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> So she was "brought into the covenant" as a child according to the standard correct?



I would say yes, pointing to Ruth as an example, since she was a Moabite brought into the Jewish covenant.



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Pray for her please.



I definitely will, brother.


----------



## Ianterrell (Feb 1, 2005)

Chris,

Your so right. There must be some specific promises for God's church towards their little ones and the Bible is full of such promises.

[Edited on 1-2-2005 by Ianterrell]


----------



## Ianterrell (Feb 1, 2005)

Adam, 

That sounds like a very serious need! I will pray for your daughter.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 1, 2005)

Chris, 
I believe the answer to this question is no.

This is at the crux of the credo theology. It is the fracture in the system that cannot be avoided. This was monumental to my transition. On one hand, the credo child is no different from the pagan next door in that they are:
1) Unregenerate
2) outside Gods covenant protection
3) God cannot/will not hear their prayers
4) Their father is the devil

on the other hand, the credo creates an inconsistancy in that they teach heir children to pray, to call God father, as if they have some special pass, by default. This is the inconsistancy that for me, was the straw that broke the camels back. The child cannot be (as Randy said) seperated unto the Lord because of having Chrisitian parents and be like the pagan child next door at the same time. Randy, where is the scriptural support for thinking along these lines? There isn't any. Thats the problem. CT reconciles this inconsistancy. The pages of OT writ are full of the exhortation to rear our children in the way they should go, pray with them, teach them about God, etc. This can only be rightfully accomlished in light of the Abrahamic promise and it's requirements.This is not to say that the credo is totally wrong; they are trying to follow these commands; this is good, yet it is futile to a degree as in even this, God is disturbed. By not being obedient to Gods command (The Abrahamic promise), the opposite actually occurs. The child is not brought closer, but cut off.

Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 
Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 
Gen 17:14 *And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. *

Exo 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 
Exo 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 
Exo 4:26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. 

God considers killing Moses for his rebellion. Zipporah calls Moses whimpy for not doing his duty as a father and a husband.

Randy,
This have to be thought of along the lines of logic. Thereare only a few scenario's
.
1) God looks upon *all* children as generally _special_. This to include the devil worshippers child next door to us.
*We know this is wrong.

2) God looks on *no* children as special; whether one has the sign is irrelelvent. All children are out.
*We know this is wrong also.

3) God looks in favor upon *some* children.
a) Children of Christian parents because they are born in a Chrisitian family.

or

b) God looks in favor to children of Christian parents whom are in covenant w/God. The covenant parents place the covenant sign upon their child as per Gods command.

B is correct; it is the only scriptural example that can be supported. To remain consistant with their theology, the credo must teach their child that they are totally at odds with God. That God cannot and does not look upon them in the least. They are in no better standing than the devil worshipper next door. if this is not accomplished, if the teachings are not arranged in this manner, the child grows up confused. The child thinks that God hears my prayers even if I am not saved. God is my father; my dad and mom have been telling me this all my days; why be saved? I don't understand. Now my parents are telling me something different; I am not Gods son, I am no better than the pagan child now that I am older. Which is it???? Why has this thinking changed? Did they lie to me? One day I can pray to God, the next I shouldn't. One day he hears my prayers, the next day, he doesn;t.



[Edited on 2-1-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 1, 2005)

This is the whole example of why I thought anyone who believed in Covenant Theology (other than my issue of church replacing Israel...hush, Cheri...lol) and credobaptism were deceived. Those that I knew that had been baptized as infants (Presbyterians, lutherans, and methodists) all thought that they were Christians by default, that they had never been a sinner, could never remember being one, and felt that they were better than the rest of us (baptists, nazerene, pentacostals) because they were in a "covenant". Personally, with it being the small town I was in, I wouldn't doubt if you could throw that in as one of the factors of teacher favoritism....aside from having to be born there, be white, or have plenty of money.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 1, 2005)

Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified by the husband; else, then, your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 

Maybe my words were not selected very well. It would be presumptive that the Lord has separated my children unto himself. But I am raising them to know that their lives are not their own. They belong to God. He will meet with them face to face for an account. And they ought not want to meet with him after having lived life their own way. I am teaching them to call upon God concerning His will and their justification in Christ. I am co-laboring with God in this matter. At least they are chosen to hear such a wonderful message.

I was referencing 1Cor. 7:14 in my mind when I made my statement. Because I am a Christian my children are considered Holy. There is no mention of baptism or any sign mentioned in the text. Just the connection of our relationship.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified by the husband; else, then, your children are unclean, but now they are holy.



Randy,
This passage is in light of the Abrahamic promise. 



> Maybe my words were not selected very well. It would be presumptive that the Lord has separated my children unto himself. But I am raising them to know that their lives are not their own. They belong to God.



How long will they belong to God? Why do they need to be saved if they belong to God? Do the neighbors children next door belong to God? Why not? The paedo baptist believes that our children are in the visible church and are considered Christian. I personally _presume_ they are regenerate (not yet converted). They are part of the covenant family. Ultimately, they could break Gods covenant and apostasize.




> He will meet with them face to face for an account. And they ought not want to meet with him after having lived life their own way.



But you said they 'belong to God'...........




> I am teaching them to call upon God concerning His will and their justification in Christ. I am co-laboring with God in this matter. At least they are chosen to hear such a wonderful message.



I can not agree with you. Gods word says that they are cut off.



> I was referencing 1Cor. 7:14 in my mind when I made my statement. Because I am a Christian my children are considered Holy.



What do you do with the statement in Genesis saying that they are 'cut-off'?



> There is no mention of baptism or any sign mentioned in the text. Just the connection of our relationship.



Hermeneutically, it is there. That is what Paul is referring to. He has to be.

[Edited on 2-1-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Philip A (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> So unless the children of believers have a specific covenantal promise of spiritual favor and blessing from God, how can their simply being raised in a Christian home and environment be thought to have any hopeful effect on their hearts?



You have mistakenly assumed that this is an either/or issue. Either they have a covenantal promise, or they cannot be affected by being raised in a Christian home.

As a resident of the undistributed middle, this is what I have found between your "either" and your "or":




> *WCF V:II*
> Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, _according to the nature of second causes_, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
> 
> *WCF V:III*
> God, in his ordinary providence, _maketh use of means_, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.




I believe that the Christian family is a _means_ that God uses in his providence as a _secondary cause_ to work in the hearts of the children he has beforehand decreed will be members of said family. Acts 17:26 applies.

[Edited on 1-2-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## Philip A (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Hermeneutically, it is there. That is what Paul is referring to. He has to be.



Is this a good hermeneutic? "Paul HAS TO BE saying _this_?

Is there any part of scripture that we can come to already having decided that whatever it says, it HAS TO BE saying what we say it must?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Phillip,
The statement was not my hermeneutic. Scripture defines scripture right? Does not Genesis say that if the sign is not applied to the child, they are cut off? How else could your children be considered 'holy'? 



[Edited on 2-1-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## cupotea (Feb 1, 2005)

I admit, I don't quite understand what you guys are talking about, because of your terminology. But I do have a point to bring up. This reminds me of the Half-way covenant debate (which I understood! I have a feeling an opinion has to be 200+ years old for me to understand it! or it has to be explained by Cotton Mather--which would make it 200+ years old... anyway..) that they had in the late 17th century in Boston. They were saying, Should we baptize the kids of parents who aren't members? How do we know those kids are elect? Some people said, No, those parents won't raise the kids properly, if they aren't even members. Others said, Yeah, but if you start turning people away, there will be noone left. 

Well I take this personally, because my parents are both Athiests. I sure don't consider myself an Athiest! Just because my parents raised me to (in their eyes) decide my religion for myself doesn't, In my humble opinion, make me hated by God. 

You probably want me to use Scripture to back this up. Fine. Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. Those Gentiles weren't the children of Christians; they were pagans.


----------



## Philip A (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> How else could your children be considered 'holy'?



Weren't you a baptist for 15 years? Didn't you know the credo position inside and out? If so then you know the answer to this already.

[Edited on 1-2-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 1, 2005)

Cottonball, That is exactly what the topic header reminded me of...the Half-Way Covenant...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I do know the answer Phillip; thats the point. It was the wrong answer. If it was so iron clad, why am I sitting over here on this side of the fence.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> I admit, I don't quite understand what you guys are talking about, because of your terminology. But I do have a point to bring up. This reminds me of the Half-way covenant debate (which I understood! I have a feeling an opinion has to be 200+ years old for me to understand it! or it has to be explained by Cotton Mather--which would make it 200+ years old... anyway..) that they had in the late 17th century in Boston. They were saying, Should we baptize the kids of parents who aren't members? How do we know those kids are elect? Some people said, No, those parents won't raise the kids properly, if they aren't even members. Others said, Yeah, but if you start turning people away, there will be noone left.
> 
> Well I take this personally, because my parents are both Athiests. I sure don't consider myself an Athiest! Just because my parents raised me to (in their eyes) decide my religion for myself doesn't, In my humble opinion, make me hated by God.
> ...



We are not talking of adults, we are speaking of children. Paul was an apostle to the gentile population. He preached Christ to them; they received. They then placed the sign on their children. 

In terms of the HWC, there is no covenant relationship under this pretense. Both parents were unsaved.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Those that I knew that had been baptized as infants (Presbyterians, lutherans, and methodists) all thought that they were Christians by default, that they had never been a sinner, could never remember being one, and felt that they were better than the rest of us (baptists, nazerene, pentacostals) because they were in a "covenant".



That's a shame.



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified by the husband; else, then, your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
> 
> Maybe my words were not selected very well. It would be presumptive that the Lord has separated my children unto himself. But I am raising them to know that their lives are not their own. They belong to God. He will meet with them face to face for an account. And they ought not want to meet with him after having lived life their own way. I am teaching them to call upon God concerning His will and their justification in Christ. I am co-laboring with God in this matter. At least they are chosen to hear such a wonderful message.
> ...



But 1 Corinthians 7:14 is not alone. To see the nature of its promise, it must be looked at beside like Scriptures, such as Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15 and Acts 2:39. When the continuity of these promises straight from OT passages to NT passages is seen, it must be realized that the OT promises were _covenantal_ promises, and there is no abrupt change in the nature and wording of the NT promises. So passages like 1 Cor. 7:14 must be seen in light of similar passages, which show that the only reason they are holy is because they are in covenant with God.

Also, you speak of your children being chosen to hear the message of grace and of your exposing them to it as you raise them as advantages. But in light of your credobaptist system, you must admit that your exposing them to it is no different than your evangelism to any one person or group of people on the street, because of Total Depravity.



> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Of course God is free to work beyond His ordinarily chosen means - but we have no right to assume any such work to be the norm. And what Randy claimed above was to be able to treat his raising of his children in a Christian home as an advantage over secular children by default. And God can indeed work beyond His means and save some children that are not in covenant with Him. But that is not the norm, and we have no basis for assuming that God's favor will be the norm with our children, even with the means of grace, apart from acknowledgment of covenantal promise.



> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> Well I take this personally, because my parents are both Athiests. I sure don't consider myself an Athiest! Just because my parents raised me to (in their eyes) decide my religion for myself doesn't, In my humble opinion, make me hated by God.
> 
> You probably want me to use Scripture to back this up. Fine. Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. Those Gentiles weren't the children of Christians; they were pagans.



We do not believe by any means that believing adults are in any way affected by their parents' status. If you have professed faith in Christ, you are presumed to be in the covenant just as are the children of believers. The issue is when you were still a child under your parents' care - at _that_ time, and before your profession of faith, there would have been no basis for, say, a believing relative praying for you, to assume that you had a promise from God _at that point_. But, lo and behold, he has brought you into His gracious covenant through regeneration and faith.


----------



## cupotea (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Cottonball, That is exactly what the topic header reminded me of...the Half-Way Covenant...



Cool, I'm not alone! Are you a Boston nerd, too?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 1, 2005)

CB,
Do you understand that the HWC has no covenantal ties. It is ridiculous. Worse than a Romish baptism. Neither parents were covenantally attached.


----------



## cupotea (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> We do not believe by any means that believing adults are in any way affected by their parents' status. If you have professed faith in Christ, you are presumed to be in the covenant just as are the children of believers. The issue is when you were still a child under your parents' care - at _that_ time, and before your profession of faith, there would have been no basis for, say, a believing relative praying for you, to assume that you had a promise from God _at that point_. But, lo and behold, he has brought you into His gracious covenant through regeneration and faith.



What do you mean by "under my parents' care"? I'm not trying to nit-pick or annoy you; I just mean that I converted while I lived with my parents, under the age of 18. I was baptised and became a member under the age of 18, too, so I was still officially under my parent's care. In fact, I've been thinking about this a lot lately, my dad may have unintentionally converted me, or at least planted some seed of belief in me, when I was pretty young. Does that make any difference?

Another thing I don't understand is assumption of a promise. Do you mean, before I converted, a relative would have no reason to think I was one of the Elect? If so, you're right! But I dont think a relative would have reason to think it if my parents were believers, either. Perhaps I think this because my dad was baptised and raised in a Christian family, but it didn't impact him (he was part of the Baby Boom, so he joined in with that whole 60s hippie rebel movement). 

Or here's an even better example: a close friend of mine had some family troubles, and had to live with her aunt for over a year. She was dragged (she didn't like it at all, unfortunately) to church _every week_ the whole time she was there. Let me tell you, that didn't have any impact on her. Once, some time after she had moved away from her aunt, we were talking, and I dont' remember the context, but I mentioned the New Testament. "There's a new one?!" she cried. It was pretty sad. 

So you can see why I don't think the family you're raised in necessarily reflects your religion. I definitely think that it affects your outlook, so it might have a sort of social impact. But I don't think that being raised in a Christian family creates a greater chance of being Elect, and that you can't forejudge the kid's salvation based on that of the parents (which you also don't know, because how are we to know who is truly Elect and who isn't? But that's another question, for another day).


----------



## cupotea (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> CB,
> Do you understand that the HWC has no covenantal ties. It is ridiculous. Worse than a Romish baptism. Neither parents were covenantally attached.



Wow I just realized what you mean by "HWC". What is your problem with it, though?

[Edited on 1-2-2005 by Cottonball]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



It is as far from a covenant as you could get. There is no connection to any covenant, i.e parents place the sign upon their children. The parents are covenant members; the children are their seeds. The HWC has no connection to any covenant; it's just water. They were placing the sign by proxy. There was no one to rear these children in the way they should go? The promise is to you and your children.............


[Edited on 2-1-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 1, 2005)

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



While you are a dependent upon your parents, which in our culture is usually under 18, then a believing relative would have no basis _other than a profession of faith_ to believe you to be one of the elect. But as soon as you do make a profession of faith, and the Church judges you to be one who understands the Gospel, then there is such a basis.



> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> Another thing I don't understand is assumption of a promise. Do you mean, before I converted, a relative would have no reason to think I was one of the Elect? If so, you're right! But I dont think a relative would have reason to think it if my parents were believers, either. Perhaps I think this because my dad was baptised and raised in a Christian family, but it didn't impact him (he was part of the Baby Boom, so he joined in with that whole 60s hippie rebel movement).



That is the key difference between the paedobaptist and credobaptist positions. We see a believing relative as having reason to think you are elect if your parents are believers, because of their membership in God's external covenant based on that principle's continuity from the Old Testament, and God's spiritual promises to bless and favor the children of believers like the verses I cited in my previous post. But we simply take those promises and that external covenant status as being a sufficient grounds on which to _presume_ that children of believers are elect, even though it does not prove it - just like both paedobaptists and credobaptists agree that a profession of faith is such a sufficient grounds for presuming such status, though it does not prove it either. Here is a thread in which we discussed this issue.

Furthermore, though I disagree with you about the children of believers having no more spiritual advantage than those of unbelievers, at least you are consistent, whereas the point Randy seems to be making is inconsistent. He is saying that exposure to the Word and a Christians environment is an advantage for the child of the believer, even though that child has no covenantal promise from God. But because of Total Depravity, such exposure cannot be seen to have any more advantage to a children of believers than to the children of unbelievers or any person on the street. You affirm that, and are thus consistent with your denial of their covenantal promise. But Randy is inconsistently trying to hold onto the advantage his children have in a Christian environment, while denying the covenantal promise from God - and I'm trying to get him to see that in order to be consistent, he must abandon one of those two beliefs, and either embrace paedobaptism or else adopt your consistent credobaptist perspective, denying that the children of believers have any advantage of other children because of their upbringing.



> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> Or here's an even better example: a close friend of mine had some family troubles, and had to live with her aunt for over a year. She was dragged (she didn't like it at all, unfortunately) to church _every week_ the whole time she was there. Let me tell you, that didn't have any impact on her. Once, some time after she had moved away from her aunt, we were talking, and I dont' remember the context, but I mentioned the New Testament. "There's a new one?!" she cried. It was pretty sad.



Again, we do not believe that a Christian family will _always_ result in God's spiritual blessing upon a child, only that it is a biblical basis on which to _presume_ that blessing, and that it often will. Keep in mind that there are countless people with a profession of faith who turn out to be clueness and heartless about God as well.



> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> So you can see why I don't think the family you're raised in necessarily reflects your religion. I definitely think that it affects your outlook, so it might have a sort of social impact. But I don't think that being raised in a Christian family creates a greater chance of being Elect, and that you can't forejudge the kid's salvation based on that of the parents (which you also don't know, because how are we to know who is truly Elect and who isn't? But that's another question, for another day).



Because of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace, you are being consistent in that you indeed cannot believe that such a family has any effect on a child's spiritual status as long as you deny their possession of a covenantal promise. And we do not believe it to have such an effect in and of itself, or because the environment has advantages, but because of the covenantal promise we see from God to favor and bless them. But as long as you deny that promise, you are correct to likewise deny _any_ advantage in a Christian home, which is the consistency I'm trying to point out to Randy as well.


----------



## cupotea (Feb 1, 2005)

Chris:

I'm a Credo? Please history-nerd-ify it for me: is that what John Bunyan believed, as opposed to the "Puritans"? I know at the time there were three main religious groups that had wee differences: "Puritans", Presbyterians, and ______baptists. I always thought I kind of fit in with the "Puritans" because I agreed with the things they said. Maybe I just haven't noticed the subtle differences (I blame Cotton Mather, who basically thought that those differences were insignificant--so he noted to a Presbyterian--darn, I can't remember who--when trying to suck up to him; it was a really funny letter, no offense to Mather).

I thought the difference between Baptists and Puritans was that Baptists thought you should be baptised in adulthood. That's what John Bunyan, I thought, refers to in Pilgrim's Progress, when Christian climbs the hill and the burden is removed from his back. I guess you guys (Paedos?) are saying that it's ok to baptise children if their parents are members of the church, because those children will likely become believers, since they'll be raised in a Christian family. Maybe you're calling me a Credo because Credos think that the family doesn't make any difference, so people should wait til they're old enough to understand and consciously decide...?

Don't worry, I'm not realizing for the first time that I don't know what I'm talking about. In fact, I have been aware for a while, and meant to ask the minister at my church (St.Paul's), but haven't gotten around to it (I'm rarely in Hamilton--and the church I go to in Toronto is too big for me to bug the minister), so I'm actually just taking advantage of this opportunity! I'm reading the Institutes by Calvin right now. I've already read a book _about_ the Institutes, and I've read an abridged version, but now I'm reading the full unabridged 1559 (I think they mean both the year _and_ the number of pages, haha) version. I really hope it'll explain it, since I deliberately sought for the others to, but they didn't.

If it's any consolation, I actually understood all of the debates that the Bostonians had that Mather recorded in the Magnalia. Funny, I don't think Mather meant to dumb it down for people, either. 

Anyway, thanks for explaining it to me, and let me know if I'm right about the Paedo/Credo thing.

Scott:

I'm not sure what you mean. The HWC allowed ministers to baptise children of non-members who had been baptised. 

Some people thought that wasnt good enough because the parents weren't reformed enough--they were sort of half-hearted Christians if they couldn't even bother to become members. Therefore, they wouldn't raise their kids properly, and their kids probably wouldn't ever become members.

Other people thought that since fewer people were becoming members, if you didn't accept non-member children, within a few generations you wouldnt have anyone to baptise. 

Many many Bostonians are going to spin in their graves at my saying this, but it actually kind of reminds me of the gay church controversy going on right now. You guys probably don't even have this--you are lucky. However, in Toronto, gay people are a big deal. A lot of churches know that fewer people are becoming members, and that Christianity is simply not "popular". So they're bending the rules and allowing outright gay people to become members. Worse than that, though, is they're actually marrying gay people. I only see the connection because it's saying, "well, if we don't let in the few people that want to come in, we'll have noone left". Obviously, though, there's a major difference, in that the gay churches (as I call them) are overlooking the Bible and saying that unrepentant sinners should be allowed to be church members, which is absolutely ridiculous. Thankfully, my church is one of the few churches in Toronto that doesn't have the gay flag in its windows. In fact, my church has made it perfectly clear that they are opposed to even legalizing gay marriage. 

Anyway, I can understand both sides of the HWC debate. I almost can't side with the pro side simply because I always mentally parallel it with the gay church debate. However, if I'm a Credo, perhaps I can side with it, since I think that the parents don't make a difference, member or baptised or nothing. But I can understand why you're against it.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 1, 2005)

Sorry, I should have looked at your signature and saw that you are a Presbyterian. I guess I assumed you were a credo (which is, yes, what John Bunyan believed) because you said you do not see the children of believers as having any more hope of election than those of unbelievers, which is contrary to basically all of the paedo camp, because Presumptive Election has always been tied to the doctrine of paedobaptism, since the baptized are treated as members of the external Church, and thus presumed to be of the internal, just like those who profess faith. Paedobaptists historically see the baptism of their children as signifying God's covenantal promises of spiritual favor and blessing to the children, and see those promises signified in their baptism. Since you apparently advocate paedobaptism, what is it that you see as signified in the baptism?


----------



## cupotea (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Sorry, I should have looked at your signature and saw that you are a Presbyterian.



The thing is, my church doesn't talk about this stuff at all. I mean, Sunday to Sunday, sermon to sermon, there isn't any mention of the significance of baptism. Credo, paedo, they don't talk about that. I didn't really like the way I was made a member of St.Pauls, because they didn't even really check to see if I knew anything, or explain anything to me. I thought that Baptists were a different religion, because of their adulthood-baptism belief, but nobody explained the infant-baptism belief. That's why I'm asking "I'm a Credo?" because I really don't know. Anyway, even if I am, I wouldn't change churches since it doesn't seem to matter. I love the church I'm going to in Toronto, and I love the minister, and he doesn't seem to believe anything different from me, so why should I lose that great part of my life over something so insignificant?



> Since you apparently advocate paedobaptism, what is it that you see as signified in the baptism?



_That's_ what I don't understand. I thought that baptism is washing away sins, demonstrating that the person is one of the Elect. I never understood how a baby can be seen to be one of the Elect, when it's a baby who doesn't know what's going on. From what I gather, Paedos think that the baby is sort of being baptised in good faith that it's one of the Elect because it's parents are. I never really understood that, either.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> a believing relative would have no basis _other than a profession of faith_ to believe you to be one of the elect. But as soon as you do make a profession of faith, and the Church judges you to be one who understands the Gospel, then there is such a basis.



They would have no basis to believe that even as a child in a Christian home, would they? Sorry, I am confuddled as I have seen total anti-christians come out of Christian homes and Christians come out of non-Christian homes. Election really has nothing to do with the home or ones baptism, right? I was raised in a non-christian home (but they did believe in God), had three Christian grandmothers praying for me everyday of their lives, and somehow I got stuck on a bus every Sunday. I can also state that I felt (knew that) God's hand was on me (claiming me) for as long as I can remember, though I don't consider my salvation to be till later...but who knows. Either way, how can we presume who's children are chosen and whose are not based upon circumstances? Just curious....as I'm trying to understand this conversation.

Cottonball...no, raised by military geeks....


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 2, 2005)

I'm glad this discussion is creating an opportunity for things like this to be clarified. Paedobaptists do presume their children's election, but it is important to understand that we do not simply presume it because of their exposure in a Christian environment. Rather, it is based upon the fact that in the Old Testament, children of believers were considered to be members of the external covenant, and were given the covenantal sign of circumcision. And because of the Covenant Theology hermeneutic, which is basically to assume continuity between the covenants until shown otherwise, we believe that God still treats our children as members of His external covenant as He did in the Old, since there is no rescinding of that principle in the New Testament.

Furthermore, we believe our children's membership in the external covenant to be a biblically sufficient grounds on which to _presume_ that they are part of the internal covenant as well, and thus elect. That is because of God's many promises throughout both Testaments to spiritually favor and bless them, such as:

-Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and you [Abraham] and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you."
-Deuteronomy 30:6 "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."
-Psalm 22:9-10 "Yet you [God] are he who took me [David] from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God."
-Psalm 103:17-18 "But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments."
-Proverbs 3:33 "The LORD's curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the dwelling of the righteous."
-Proverbs 11:21 "Be assured, an evil person will not go unpunished, but the offspring of the righteous will be delivered."
-Isaiah 54:13 "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children."
-Isaiah 59:21 "'And as for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the LORD: 'My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring,' says the LORD, 'from this time forth and forevermore.'"
-Isaiah 65:23 "They [God's people] shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them."
-Jeremiah 32:39 "I will give them [the elect] one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them."
-Luke 1:14-15 "And you [Zechariah] will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his [John the Baptist's] birth, for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."
-Acts 2:39 "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
-1 Corinthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."

While it is of course true that many people brought up in Christian homes turn out to be reprobates, you must realize that that is also true of many who profess faith in Christ. Yet those who profess faith are members of the external covenant, and are _presumed_ to be elect members of the internal covenant as well. So it is with the children of believers, and since only God can read the heart, ultimately _all_ declared covenant membership is based on presumption. And since God's promises are surely as trustworthy a ground on which to presume such as is man's profession, we see it as biblical to presume that our children are elect and set apart to God.

Now, in spiritually blessing our children, God does indeed use the means of being exposed to the Word, the Church and a Christian home. But the point I was making at the beginning of this thread is that because of Total Depravity, such means in and of themselves do no good, and give no advantage to their recipients _unless_ God promises to use them to do such good. And that is why credobaptists, who deny that our children have a covenantal promise from God, cannot presume that their children are benefitted from their upbringing any more than other children and people on the street are benefitted by hearing the Word. It is only if one believes in God's covenantal promises to our children that that person can have grounded hope that their raising their children to love God is doing any good.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> Furthermore, we believe our children's membership in the external covenant to be a biblically sufficient grounds on which to _presume_ that they are part of the internal covenant as well, and thus elect. That is because of God's many promises throughout both Testaments to spiritually favor and bless them, such as:



I think it is this presumption (not that it is either good or bad) is what causes the issues and assuptions of their children that I had stated early in this thread. This is truely a shame. How do you then bring a child to repentance and a point of actual (present) salvation (if the child is elect of course)? Maybe it's the difference between those that presume their child's election and therefore the child is raised assuming with pride and those that do not presume upon God's determination and are consistant in trying to bring their children to the throne?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 2, 2005)

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



We all recognize that God uses means to impart His regenerating grace, most notably the Word. In presuming the children to be elect, we thus assume that they will in due time _respond_ to the Word's presentation of the Gospel and call to repentance.

There is no room for pride, because the saving faith reveals one's true sinful nature and dependence on God to them, and that is the means with which we presume God will convert them.

Those who do not believe that God covenantally promises to spiritually bless and favor our children, on the other hand, can indeed try to bring their children to the throne as you said, but cannot really have any grounded hope that it will do any more good than a simple Gospel presentation to a random person would on any given day.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

fully agreed...both do presume...and only time will tell with both.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Ms Flint,
> 
> This is not the only view of paedo's. I think the presumptive regenerationists were answerd quite nicely by Fred Greco and myself in the theological forum awhile ago. Maybe Chris, the link0finder, can post it for you.



 Yeah, I'm basically neutral on the PR claim, and I'm content to be, at least for now. That was a great discussion, and it can be found...abra-cadabra...here!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

Thank you...but please, everyone, drop the "Ms" thing. I am a Mrs and Flynt is not my married name....so LadyFlynt or Colleen (or ma'am) works just fine...


----------



## kceaster (Feb 2, 2005)

I had a thought this morning and then my brain started to ache. 

Let me see if I can articulate it.

Paedo and credo alike should be able to come to some sort of agreement as to how the covenant operated in the OT. Family was everything, right? If you weren't a Jew, it was very unlikely that you would come to saving faith in the Messiah to come, right?

Now, God elected all to salvation (and likewise to damnation) before one family unit was placed on earth, right?

So, all those who are to be saved are already chosen, but they have not yet lived. What if God in His providence places them in situations where they come to saving knowledge, and what if He does this based on the covenantal scheme?

Let me explain what I mean by scheme. The covenant exists with the people God enjoins. They can either break it or keep it based upon His grace and mercy. He also visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the 3rd or 4th generations of them that hate Him, and shows mercy to thousands of them that love Him and that keep His commandments.

Since the beginning of time, all have broken the covenant. And of those, God has providentially placed His elect among them. This He knows that some men's iniquity will fall upon their children. A man who is in covenant (who is not regenerate or elect) sins and thus the chain is broken. God places reprobate children in this family for the times He chooses until He once again places the elect in the family line. Some family lines are broken, as there are no children, but this is in God's plan as well.

The point of all this is that we come from the same distant ancestors. All of us track back to Ham, Shem, and Japheth and through them to Adam. All of us have broken the covenant. Those whom God elected, He placed in time and in life where they would receive the Word of the Lord and be glad. Yet, each one's life is a complete history of all that has gone before. We stand because God elected us, but we also stand because of the secondary means He used to get us where we are. Remember God's providence and sovereignty in all of this. If He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, can He not also place us where we will hear the gospel of grace and be converted?

The family in the covenant scheme does not determine election. Rather, election determines the family. Does this make sense to anyone?

Allow me to illustrate. My father, my grandfather, and my great-grandfather, as far as I can tell, are reprobate. However, my father taught me about God, directly or indirectly, and took me to church, and God through this providentially introduced me to the gospel by which I could be saved. Now, assuming my election and assuming that God is working out His covenant in time, I have to also assume that He placed me here (where my fathers before me were placed in reprobation) because of His covenant promise to someone in my ancestry. Ultimately, God is fulfilling the promise made to Abraham and to Christ, right? I stand today because of God's grace to Abraham through Christ.

What may we glean from Scripture would shoot these thoughts down? Before anyone answers this, frame your thoughts in God's providence and sovereignty. If you do this, you must lay aside physical ancestry for a moment. In other words, get past the idea that God elects by physical descendants. The main objection I've heard to this type of thinking by the members on this board is that God's hand must be forced if we claim that He saves through families. The objection is well taken because of the fact that we are given the example of NT Jews believing themselves to be saved because they were of physical lineage. The mentality here is that God must save someone because they are of the sons of Abraham.

First, God saves only the sons of Abraham. By this I mean that Abraham is the father of all those who have faith. So, I'm not talking about physical descendancy. Second, God is providential in how He places men and women, boys and girls in time. His sovereign choice in salvation certainly comes first, but His providential placement cannot be overlooked. Therefore, God can choose to save me, but He also chooses to place me where I can hear the gospel. And why? His covenant faithfulness is the answer that I come up with.

If we apply this to believing the promises of God for our children, then we must say that He elected those whom He is going to save, and He also gives those ones to certain families.

The objection is duly noted that not all who believe had believing parents. But think more about God's providence and how you come to stand where you stand. Are you the first believer along the lines of your ancestry? Just because you are the only believer in your immediate family does not mean that God is not carrying out His promises to someone in your family line. That someone is Abraham ultimately. But I think it is a stretch to believe that God skipped every generation from Abraham to you in placing the elect in families.

What am I getting at?

We stand because someone else in our family has stood. And they stood because God providentially put them there because of His election. Why do family lines go the way of God and others go the way to hell? Because God has put more thought into the election and salvation of His people than we can understand. We are not randomly situated.

We preach the gospel to all, we train up our children as disciples. The promise God has given us is for us and for our children. That promise may be rescinded in our children, but reinstated to our great-grandchildren. It is as many as the Lord our God will call. But, He gives us faith that His Word will change our children. This is why we place the sign on them and teach them in the way they should go. This is why they are separate unto the Lord and are in covenant.

He providentially put us where we stand. He providentially gave us children. Only He knows if they are elect or not. If they are, He is fulfilling His promises. If they are not, He is providentially carrying out His justice. But this gives us no reason to say He failed in His promises. We cannot see the generations to come, He can. Ultimately, He is fulfilling His promise all along the lines of redemptive history. He has promised to save those He has chosen for salvation, and pour out His wrath on those He has chosen for damnation. If we hope for our children's salvation, we can only hope in Him. He is the only one who can save them.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I had a thought this morning and then my brain started to ache.
> 
> Let me see if I can articulate it.


okay now you are making my head ache...let me get the tylenol so I can pick apart your answer....not intentionally....


> Paedo and credo alike should be able to come to some sort of agreement as to how the covenant operated in the OT. Family was everything, right? If you weren't a Jew, it was very unlikely that you would come to saving faith in the Messiah to come, right?


Right....


> Now, God elected all to salvation (and likewise to damnation) before one family unit was placed on earth, right?
> 
> So, all those who are to be saved are already chosen, but they have not yet lived. What if God in His providence places them in situations where they come to saving knowledge, and what if He does this based on the covenantal scheme?


Thinking...


> Let me explain what I mean by scheme. The covenant exists with the people God enjoins. They can either break it or keep it based upon His grace and mercy. He also visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the 3rd or 4th generations of them that hate Him, and shows mercy to thousands of them that love Him and that keep His commandments.


I have learned that though he may visit upon the 3rd and 4th generations that many times that will be all their children, but one will be spared and through that line will continue the covenant (no I'm not giving scripture! This is an observation!)


> Since the beginning of time, all have broken the covenant. And of those, God has providentially placed His elect among them. This He knows that some men's iniquity will fall upon their children. A man who is in covenant (who is not regenerate or elect) sins and thus the chain is broken. God places reprobate children in this family for the times He chooses until He once again places the elect in the family line. Some family lines are broken, as there are no children, but this is in God's plan as well.


you did not read my post earlier about children of the reprobate turning out to be christians and children of christians turning out to be reprobate. Many times the Lord will use reprobate circumstances to draw His children to Him by placing them IN reprobate homes. And truely, those reprobate children are receiving the fullest blessing they will ever receive by being in a covenanted home as it is the only "heaven" they will ever know. So too often I have seen the opposite of what you are describing. Now in character issues I can agree.


> The point of all this is that we come from the same distant ancestors. All of us track back to Ham, Shem, and Japheth and through them to Adam. All of us have broken the covenant. Those whom God elected, He placed in time and in life where they would receive the Word of the Lord and be glad. Yet, each one's life is a complete history of all that has gone before. We stand because God elected us, but we also stand because of the secondary means He used to get us where we are. Remember God's providence and sovereignty in all of this. If He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, can He not also place us where we will hear the gospel of grace and be converted?


yes, God's Providence and Sovereignty IS in all of this.


> The family in the covenant scheme does not determine election. Rather, election determines the family. Does this make sense to anyone?


yes, God uses what means He may to draw His own.


> Allow me to illustrate. My father, my grandfather, and my great-grandfather, as far as I can tell, are reprobate. However, my father taught me about God, directly or indirectly, and took me to church, and God through this providentially introduced me to the gospel by which I could be saved. Now, assuming my election and assuming that God is working out His covenant in time, I have to also assume that He placed me here (where my fathers before me were placed in reprobation) because of His covenant promise to someone in my ancestry. Ultimately, God is fulfilling the promise made to Abraham and to Christ, right? I stand today because of God's grace to Abraham through Christ.


okay, I see where you are going. 
But don't you believe that God can elect someone out of a totally reprobate lineage (thus no covenantal promise to any ancestor)...and have a covenant with that one? What an example of God's grace that would be!
But yes, I do agree that it could be due to a promise with an ancestor...even an adopted child can be used to fulfill a promise with a covenant person. 



> What may we glean from Scripture would shoot these thoughts down? Before anyone answers this, frame your thoughts in God's providence and sovereignty. If you do this, you must lay aside physical ancestry for a moment. In other words, get past the idea that God elects by physical descendants. The main objection I've heard to this type of thinking by the members on this board is that God's hand must be forced if we claim that He saves through families. The objection is well taken because of the fact that we are given the example of NT Jews believing themselves to be saved because they were of physical lineage. The mentality here is that God must save someone because they are of the sons of Abraham.
> 
> First, God saves only the sons of Abraham. By this I mean that Abraham is the father of all those who have faith. So, I'm not talking about physical descendancy. Second, God is providential in how He places men and women, boys and girls in time. His sovereign choice in salvation certainly comes first, but His providential placement cannot be overlooked. Therefore, God can choose to save me, but He also chooses to place me where I can hear the gospel. And why? His covenant faithfulness is the answer that I come up with.





> If we apply this to believing the promises of God for our children, then we must say that He elected those whom He is going to save, and He also gives those ones to certain families.
> 
> The objection is duly noted that not all who believe had believing parents. But think more about God's providence and how you come to stand where you stand. Are you the first believer along the lines of your ancestry? Just because you are the only believer in your immediate family does not mean that God is not carrying out His promises to someone in your family line. That someone is Abraham ultimately. But I think it is a stretch to believe that God skipped every generation from Abraham to you in placing the elect in families.


true...then we would have to drop the assumptions altogether, because we could all easily assume as we all have a common believing ancestor.
What am I getting at?


> We stand because someone else in our family has stood. And they stood because God providentially put them there because of His election. Why do family lines go the way of God and others go the way to hell? Because God has put more thought into the election and salvation of His people than we can understand. We are not randomly situated.
> 
> We preach the gospel to all, we train up our children as disciples. The promise God has given us is for us and for our children. That promise may be rescinded in our children, but reinstated to our great-grandchildren. It is as many as the Lord our God will call. But, He gives us faith that His Word will change our children. This is why we place the sign on them and teach them in the way they should go. This is why they are separate unto the Lord and are in covenant.
> 
> ...



 and well done....


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

Okay, so in the end...you were right....sorry, I had to do that in order to sort it all out....THANKS!


----------



## cupotea (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> The family in the covenant scheme does not determine election. Rather, election determines the family. Does this make sense to anyone?



That makes a lot of sense to me. I think God does whatever He wants to call people to Him, and one of His methods is to place children in covenanted families, so they'll be raised to love Him. It's a way He acts out His plan. Just as I wasn't raised in a covenanted family, but my dad unintentionally at least planted some seed of belief in me. 

Chris:

Thank you for discussing this paedo/credo stuff with me yesterday. I admit, I went home a bit flustered, but after some Mather-reading and full night's sleep, it made sense, and I feel like I have everything sorted out. Thanks, you've made me feel a lot better!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 2, 2005)

Sorry if I caused any frustration for you CB.........Many times, it is very difficult for me to get out of my head exactly what my brain wants to convey.


----------



## cupotea (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Sorry if I caused any frustration for you CB.........Many times, it is very difficult for me to get out of my head exactly what my brain wants to convey.



You didn't! I was confused about the credo-paedo thing because I didn't know what the terms mean. But I do know what you mean about the HWC, like that the parents aren't covenanted.


----------

