# Christ is "Able and Willing"



## Parakaleo (Sep 1, 2016)

ME (QUOTING BEEKE): Our children should be taught that Christ is both able and willing to be their Redeemer since they are members of the Covenant of Grace, they are His covenant seed, and He has claim on them even in their unregenerate state.

HYPERCOVENANTALIST: No, He's their Redeemer already! What's this "able and willing" language all about? It makes it sound like Christ is waiting around for them to make the final decision. That's what is so wrong with the "Reformed" church today, it's been infected with revivalism.

I didn't have a good response at the time, but what would you say? Is "able and willing" too weak to describe the covenant promises? Or is it actually too strong? A Redeemer Who is able and willing is not a Redeemer Who will fail in what He has purposed to do.


----------



## Edward (Sep 1, 2016)

Out of context, it seems that both formulations are wrong. Neither seems to acknowledge election.


----------



## Parakaleo (Sep 3, 2016)

Edward said:


> Out of context, it seems that both formulations are wrong. Neither seems to acknowledge election.



I have had the same thought. I do think "able and willing" is correct language to use for Christ's relationship to covenant children as their covenant Lord, but election should never be presumed as an obligation. Here's how I'm stating it now:

- A Redeemer Who is able _and_ willing...
- Is a Redeemer Who will not fail to save all that the Father has given Him.
- God’s Word gives us reason to believe that Christ is both able and willing to save covenant children as their covenant Head. The same thing could not be said for those outside the visible church. 
- Stating it this way avoids both:
(1) Presumption of election for our covenant children.
(2) Viewing the covenant as an empty relationship.

Thoughts?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Sep 13, 2016)

Christ is "willing" to save those whom He knows that He will never save?

I don't have any way to make sense of this with respect to Calvinism.

How can someone explain this better for me?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 13, 2016)

The biblical position is to expect our covenant children to be regenerate, and thus nuture them to full profession. We extend to them the same charity that we extend to other members of the visible church, namely, that we treat them as Christians until we see clear evidence that they are not. This position is not presumptive regeneration, which just assumes that all children of believers are regenerate irrespective of their moral behaviour or whether or not they show any evidence of saving faith and repentance.


----------



## zsmcd (Sep 13, 2016)

It seems to me that we simply need to check ourselves to ensure that we are not presumptuous with our children, but that we, likewise, are not doubting Gods promises to our children and treating them no different than those outside of the Church visible. 

Sean makes a good point. One could say that describing Christ as "willing" to be their redeemer is itself presumptuous - assuming that we are speaking of Christ's willingness to save all those given to him. We don't know for sure that they are elect so this is really not _much_ different then saying that he _already is_ their Redeemer by the nature of the covenant promise. Then again, could it not be called presumptuous for a pastor to use Ephesians 1 to assure his congregants that they have been chosen before the foundations of the world? How does the pastor know this? 

My point is that, just as I would have no problem telling a lost soul that Christ is "willing and able" to save theme if they would have faith, I wouldn't have a problem telling my daughter that Christ is her redeemer _if she has faith._ 

I think we should be careful not to fall into the trap of the hypercovenantalist, who might tell his child that Christ is his Redeemer by nature of the promise, but fails to point his child to his need for faith in that promise. But we should also be careful not to diminish the promises of God by failing to assure our children of the covenant promises of God, that he has placed his claim on them, to be a God to them and their children.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 13, 2016)

Election is unto faith, hence the _means_ by which the promise for the children of the covenant are ordinarily brought into the Kingdom is by the teaching of these children by their believing parents. The _able and willing_ of Our Lord should serve as a _means_ to stir up the faithful parents to do their duty.


----------



## Parakaleo (Sep 13, 2016)

From my interactions with those whom I would label "hypercovenantal", they loathe the use of any conditional statements if you are talking about people who have been baptized. I was once challenged on my use of the words, "_For all who have truly confessed their sin..._" as a preface to giving an assurance of pardon! I was told that God's promise of forgiveness should simply sound forth to covenant the community, without putting qualifiers on it that lead to "emotionalism".

Getting back to covenant children, I've had someone question me on the whole premise of special evangelism to covenant children. "Why evangelize them _any more_ than we would anyone else in the covenant community?" it has been asked.

While I think there are excellent reasons to evangelize our children more than we might for others in the church, there is some truth to the fact that, if you evangelize me _like I'm an unbeliever_ every time you see me, I'm going to think you seriously question my salvation. If I'm a child and you're one of my parents, this is going to be a crushing realization and potentially cause a lot of confusion.

As a church, we must find a way to evangelize our children without acting like we secretly think they are unregenerate. Since Paul teaches children are to obey "in the Lord" and fathers are to bring them up "in the discipline and instruction of the Lord", this sounds like we should be discipling our children. I don't see a problem with thinking of our children as disciples and continuing to challenge them with the gospel, just as Christ did with His disciples, often challenging them greatly to see that they believe.


----------



## MW (Sep 13, 2016)

The rich man in hell was a child of the covenant. "He cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me." Abraham recognised him as a child of the covenant. He called him, "Son." Our Lord did not teach on heaven and hell to make covenant children feel secure in their external privileges but so as to impress upon them their need to secure their eternal rest.

"Fear" has a good use in this regard. See Hebrews 4:1, "Let us therefore fear."


----------

