# unsaved covenant children



## Peters (Oct 18, 2005)

What is the relationship between God and a reprobate covenant child?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2005)

Essentially the same as it is for any reprobate. However, the covenant child is not treated as a reprobate (because no one but God truly knows whom are His) and excommunicated from the visible church until that day they show apostacy. Hence, they take advantage of all those things which the non reprobate child partakes. Ultimately, this pans out as a cup of damnation to the reprobate child, to the non reprobate, a means of grace.

[Edited on 10-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 18, 2005)

Is it not the same as the relationship between God and a reprobrate covenant adult?

Assume an adult is baptized into a Church and repudiates the faith because, in God's providence, he is reprobate though the Church baptized him on an earlier, visible and credible confession of faith. What is the relationship between God and that man?

Seems rather speculative to me.

God surely knows the beginning from the end but we do not. It is nice to theorize what God's relationship to the theoretical "reprobate child" but who is that reprobate child? Who are the reprobate members of your local congregation that were never really elect but whose faith will be choked by the cares of the world? Do you know who they are? Do you have Church meetings and excuse all the reprobate members so the elect can vote on the issue?

The doctrines of Grace have to be handled with special care indeed.


----------



## Peters (Oct 18, 2005)

> Essentially the same as it is for any reprobate. However, the covenant child is not treated as a reprobate (because no one but God truly knows whom are His) and excommunicated from the visible church until that day they show apostasy. Hence, they take advantage of all those things which the non reprobate child partakes. Ultimately, this pans out as a cup of damnation to the reprobate child, to the non reprobate, a means of grace.



Thanks, Scott, you got right to the issue. It is the Godward relationship that I´m interested in. Regardless of how a covenant child is treated by the visible church, God still stands in relation to them as he does to all reprobates *because* that soul (the covenant child) *is* reprobate. Correct? 

What then is the nature of the relationship between God and the reprobate?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 18, 2005)

I thought the question was:


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> What is the relationship between God and a reprobate covenant child?


Is it not?

Reprobate covenant children are a subset of the reprobate.

Are you asking for the relationship between God and the reprobate or God and reprobate covenant breakers?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> > Essentially the same as it is for any reprobate. However, the covenant child is not treated as a reprobate (because no one but God truly knows whom are His) and excommunicated from the visible church until that day they show apostasy. Hence, they take advantage of all those things which the non reprobate child partakes. Ultimately, this pans out as a cup of damnation to the reprobate child, to the non reprobate, a means of grace.
> ...



The only relationship the reprobate has with God is that God still holds that reprobate person responsible to worship Him as 1) God, 2) to His commands, 3) to repent, 4) receive, 4) accept etc. even though that reprobate person is unable to uphold those commands. He still is creator and the God of creation to all persons, whether or not they acknowledge Him as such or is unable to do as He commands is irrelevant.

The covenant child however, takes advantage of all the means of grace via their parents faith. In reality, they are worse off/better off (however you look at this) than the reprobate child not born into non covenant family because they fill their cup up more fully, which in the end will be to their judgment.


[Edited on 10-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott (Oct 18, 2005)

Reprobate in the visible church do partake of common operations of the Holy Spirit, although never coming to true saving faith. They taste of the heavenly Spirit, which is different than those outside the visible Church.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2005)

Scott
Define 'taste' and 'heavenly spirit'.


----------



## Peters (Oct 18, 2005)

> Are you asking for the relationship between God and the reprobate or God and reprobate covenant breakers?



Not at this point, because we have already established that the relationship is the same. In the eyes of God a reprobate is a reprobate. 



> The covenant child however, takes advantage of all the means of grace via their parent´s faith. In reality, they are worse off/better off (however you look at this) than the reprobate child not born into non covenant family because they fill their cup up more fully, which in the end will be to their judgment.



Scott, if the child is reprobate these things will change nothing in the relationship save that the condemnation will be greater (as you have noted). I want to focus on how God views the reprobate covenant child, not how we do. 



> The only relationship the reprobate has with God is that God still holds that reprobate person responsible to worship Him as 1) God, 2) to His commands, 3) to repent, 4) receive, 5) accept etc. even though that reprobate person is unable to uphold those commands. He still is creator and the God of creation to all persons, whether or not they acknowledge Him as such or is unable to do as He commands is irrelevant.



These are the responsibilities of any born of Adam´s fallen race. What does God think when He looks on a reprobate covenant child? What adjectives describe the relationship?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2005)

1Co 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_.


----------



## Peters (Oct 18, 2005)

You have just used 1 Corinthians 7:14 to describe the relationship between God and the reprobate covenant child (and therefore reprobates in general, since you have already said that the relationship is "œessentially" the same). Is that correct?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2005)

The reprobate covenant child partakes of peripheral 'holiness' that the reprobate/non covenant child does not. There is a difference.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> You have just used 1 Corinthians 7:14 to describe the relationship between God and the reprobate covenant child (and therefore reprobates in general, since you have already said that the relationship is "œessentially" the same). Is that correct?



To speak for him, Yeah, it is correct.

Children and spouses of believers are holy - sanctified, set apart/consecrated for God - by the believer's covenantal relationship with God. They are obligated by covenant to live by faith and live up to their covenantal status. To do otherwise is to break covenant with God and trample the blood of Christ that sanctified them (cf. Heb 10). They are left to the vengeance and wrath of God, likely far worse-off in judgment than a complete pagan, who does not get exposed as readily and clearly to the things of God and who is not given the ordinary possibility of salvation, not being part of the kingdom of God (the visible Church, cf. WCF XXV. ii.).


----------



## Peters (Oct 18, 2005)

> The reprobate covenant child partakes of peripheral 'holiness' that the reprobate/non covenant child does not. There is a difference.



The issue at hand is not what covenant children partake of (Scott) or who they are in the visible church (Gabriel), but how God eternally views them and relates to them if they are reprobates.

If I ask you, "œWhat does God think when He looks on a reprobate covenant child? What adjectives describe the relationship?" and you quote 1 Corinthians 7:14 in response to me, am I to understand that you take it to mean that God looks down on the reprobate covenant child and says, "œYou are holy and our relationship may be defined as holy"?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> > The reprobate covenant child partakes of peripheral 'holiness' that the reprobate/non covenant child does not. There is a difference.
> ...



You are redefining holiness outside of and against Paul's context.


----------



## Peters (Oct 18, 2005)

How? That was the verse given to me to answer my question.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> How? That was the verse given to me to answer my question.



Can you define how you are reading holiness in this context, especially when you hypothesize the following?:



> am I to understand that you take it to mean that God looks down on the reprobate covenant child and says, "œYou are holy and our relationship may be defined as holy"?



I don't want to misunderstand you.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2005)

In the compound sense God see's the reprobate covenant child in the same light as the non covenant reprobate child; in the divided sense, He see's the covenant child as _holy_ even though they will ultimately break covenant with Him. The holiness is not salvific.

[Edited on 10-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 18, 2005)

God sees unregenerate covenant children as unregenerate covenant children. We don't have the ability or right to say they are seen as 'reprobate' in the ultimate sense. He sees them as set apart and consecrated for His purpose, even salvation, insofar as they produce faith and repentance (temporally speaking, not decretally speaking).


----------



## pduggan (Oct 18, 2005)

I'd say that what we can say about his relationship to them is understood by covenant.

They are members of the covenant. The covenant is that "I will be their God and they will be my people".

Someone said that they are "peripherally holy". That seems like a slippery and undefined (and unbiblical?) phrase. What does it mean? Where in the bible do we see one kind of holiness distinguished from another?

They need to fulfill the terms of the covenant. Kline talks about that with Adam. God gave adam a covenant, and offered a reward stipulated on a condition. Likewise, in the new covenant, God offers salvation, and stipulates a condition of faith.

Usually, covenant children have been called 'federally' holy, though I'm not totallty clear on what that means. It might mean that they are holy because their federal head Christ is holy, but not personally holy yet because they have not yet stared to excercize their will in sanctification. Or perhaps it is simply a description of the holiness they have as members of of a holy community. Was it Gillespie who claimed that all Scotts children should be baptized on the strength of the holiness of the Solemn League and Covenant?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> Someone said that they are "peripherally holy". That seems like a slippery and undefined (and unbiblical?) phrase.



To be clearer, I repeat: In the compound sense God see's the reprobate covenant child in the same light as the non covenant reprobate child; in the divided sense, He see's the covenant child as holy even though they will ultimately break covenant with Him. The holiness is not salvific



> What does it mean? Where in the bible do we see one kind of holiness distinguished from another?



How _holy_ is the husband spoken of in 1 Cor??? Not salvifically, thats for sure! In the same way, the child is holy.



> They need to fulfill the terms of the covenant. Kline talks about that with Adam. God gave adam a covenant, and offered a reward stipulated on a condition. Likewise, in the new covenant, God offers salvation, and stipulates a condition of faith.



This is true, however we are speaking of reprobates........



> Usually, covenant children have been called 'federally' holy, though I'm not totallty clear on what that means. It might mean that they are holy because their federal head Christ is holy, but not personally holy yet because they have not yet stared to excercize their will in sanctification. Or perhaps it is simply a description of the holiness they have as members of of a holy community. Was it Gillespie who claimed that all Scotts children should be baptized on the strength of the holiness of the Solemn League and Covenant?



The father is federal head. It is by his faith that the child is federally holy; if reprobate, by the divided sense, if elect by the compound.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 18, 2005)

> What does it mean? Where in the bible do we see one kind of holiness distinguished from another?



Holy means set apart for sacred use. Judas was holy in that sense.
But was Judas holy in the sense of personal sanctification by the cleansing power of the Word and Spirit ??
No.


----------



## pduggan (Oct 18, 2005)

Well, maybe there isn't any holiness that *is* defined by the personal moral goodness of the subject.

I mean, physical objects are holy, and communicate holiness, and we're supposed to be jazzed that the bells of the horses are holy. In fact, holiness of this sort seems to be the predominant form in the bible.

A field sown with two kinds of seed was holy, and the one who did such as thing was no longer permitted to posess the fruit of it. Holiness can get you in deeper trouble, in a sense.

Holiness could be a necessary, but not sufficient consition for beholding the Lord.

Of course, in the case where the child is said to be holy, that is to the point of comforting and reassuring the parents of the kindness and grace of God toward the child.


> The father is federal head. It is by his faith that the child is federally holy; if reprobate, by the divided sense, if elect by the compound.


Could you offer a brief or detailed theological or exegetical defense of that claim? Is that doctrine of parental federal headship just derived from the 1 cor 7 passage, or elsewhere? Can any other 'public persons' constitute federal heads for ecclesiastical purposes?


----------



## Peters (Oct 18, 2005)

> God sees unregenerate covenant children as unregenerate covenant children. We don't have the ability or right to say they are seen as 'reprobate' in the ultimate sense.



A reprobate covenant child is seen by God as a reprobate covenant child. I don´t understand what the problem is, Gabriel. 



> He sees them as set apart and consecrated for His purpose, even salvation, insofar as they produce faith and repentance (temporally speaking, not decretally speaking).



So we are only permitted to comprehend that God sees covenant children from a temporal perspective, a perspective that only includes their blessing even though they may actually, factually be reprobate? Is this your commitment?



> In the compound sense God sees the reprobate covenant child in the same light as the non covenant reprobate child; in the divided sense, He sees the covenant child as holy even though they will ultimately break covenant with Him. The holiness is not salvific



Scott, could I change "œcompound" for "œobjective divine perspective" and "œdivided" for "œsubjective human perspective"?


----------



## pduggan (Oct 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_So we are only permitted to comprehend that God sees covenant children from a temporal perspective, a perspective that only includes their blessing even though they may actually, factually be reprobate? Is this your commitment?



This is something I never understand, how we can sit around saying we, temporal and finite beings, can 'comprehend' the perspective and outlook of eternity and infinitude.

Once a pastor said to me "we'll don't you think that in the secret will of God..." and I thought, no I don't think about the contents of the secret will of God. That's why its *secret*


----------



## Saiph (Oct 18, 2005)

> This is something I never understand, how we can sit around saying we, temporal and finite beings, can 'comprehend' the perspective and outlook of eternity and infinitude.



We don't.

The answer is Hebrews 6 brother.

This, in part, is why I believe in a "common grace" concept, or "temporal blessings".

The bold parts are what the holy children partake of and participate in.



> Heb 6:4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have *tasted the heavenly gift*, and have *shared in the Holy Spirit*,
> Heb 6:5 and have *tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come*,
> Heb 6:6 if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
> Heb 6:7 *For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it*, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God.
> Heb 6:8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.



The rain is good whether the ground grows thorns or fruit. The grace is good and the ground is blessed. Now, the children share in those blessings because they are in a Christian family. They are holy.


----------



## Peters (Oct 18, 2005)

Well, obviously I don´t think we are seeking here to unveil the secret things of God. We are simply trying to understand and work out some details about how God views a covenant child who is reprobate.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2005)

> Scott, could I change "œcompound" for "œobjective divine perspective" and "œdivided" for "œsubjective human perspective"?



If that helps you understand the concept, go for it. I am utilizing Turretin's terminology here.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Well, obviously I don´t think we are seeking here to unveil the secret things of God. We are simply trying to understand and work out some details about how God views a covenant child who is reprobate.


I think that's precisely what you're trying to do quite frankly. There is much that God reveals about His relationship with man but it seems like you're trying to discern some sort of speculative insight beyond what the Scriptures tell us concerning God's relationship with covenant breakers.

I asked you if you were interested in God's relationship between Himself and covenant breakers or with the reprobate in general and you responded:


> Not at this point, because we have already established that the relationship is the same. In the eyes of God a reprobate is a reprobate.


Which is untrue from even a cursory reading of the Scriptures.

Fundamentally, God's relationship is one of _covenant_ with covenant children. The theoretical reprobate covenant child (and I guess since a 50 year old is somebody's child that it includes even adults) is one who is in disobedience to that covenant. If you want to read about what God's relationship is to covenant breakers then read the Prophets of the Old Testament.

I could divine from your original post that, being a student in Theology, it was a leading question and that the discussion would lead to speculation and that is precisely what you are engaged in by your questions. People are quoting Scripture where God Himself calls His covenant people holy and calls them to repentance and you are asking them to peel away the veil. In essence, you say: "Yeah I know what God says about them but what does He _really_ think about them."


----------



## pduggan (Oct 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Well, obviously I don´t think we are seeking here to unveil the secret things of God. We are simply trying to understand and work out some details about how God views a covenant child who is reprobate.



If we don't and never will know if the child is reprobate until the end, why do we need to know?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2005)

Paul,
It is an issue of theology. What we are doing here is trying to understand the things of God. It is part and parcel to the elective decree, the covenant and Gods commands.

*Paul,
You have a private message. Cllick link upper right part of your screen.

[Edited on 10-19-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Peters (Oct 19, 2005)

> I think that's precisely what you're trying to do quite frankly. There is much that God reveals about His relationship with man but it seems like you're trying to discern some sort of speculative insight beyond what the Scriptures tell us concerning God's relationship with covenant breakers



How do you know that it is beyond what the Scripture tells us? 



> I could divine from your original post that, being a student in Theology, it was a leading question and that the discussion would lead to speculation and that is precisely what you are engaged in by your questions. People are quoting Scripture where God Himself calls His covenant people holy and calls them to repentance and you are asking them to peel away the veil. In essence, you say: "Yeah I know what God says about them but what does He really think about them."



Say what now? Brother, I take the Lord at His word and I do not think He is a liar. If you are referring to the 1 Corinthians 7:14 passage, I would say this: It was being used to describe how a reprobate covenant child is seen in the eyes of God and I wanted to know if that passage can really be used for that purpose. That is responsible inquiry, not an attempt to creep into Heaven and steal the secrets of God. 



> If we don't and never will know if the child is reprobate until the end, why do we need to know?



I disagree with your presupposition that we can´t identify the reprobate, but that begs for another thread. 

The reason is that this knowledge lends itself to our ever increasing understanding of our great God. God is the glorious subject and He must be considered according to the measure of grace that He extends to us to do so.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Say what now? Brother, I take the Lord at His word and I do not think He is a liar. If you are referring to the 1 Corinthians 7:14 passage, I would say this: It was being used to describe how a reprobate covenant child is seen in the eyes of God and I wanted to know if that passage can really be used for that purpose. That is responsible inquiry, not an attempt to creep into Heaven and steal the secrets of God.


I'm basing my opinion on the fact that you keep asking the question about how God "views" or relates to the reprobate (of whatever category).

Also, when others quote passages referring to our children as holy you seem to want to parse the issue instead of taking God at His Word.

Again, if you want to know God's relationship with Covenant Breakers then read His admonitions to them through the Prophets of the OT.


----------



## Peters (Oct 19, 2005)

That´s all fine. But what that means is - God looks down from Heaven on a REPROBATE covenant child and calls it holy. Are you willing to commit to this? 



> Also, when others quote passages referring to our children as holy you seem to want to parse the issue instead of taking God at His Word.



I will take from this that you equate biblical studies with "œnot taking God at His word."



> Again, if you want to know God's relationship with Covenant Breakers then read His admonitions to them through the Prophets of the OT.



I do not want to know what God´s relationship with "œcovenant breakers" is; I want to know what God´s relationship with the reprobate covenant child is. That is what I have been asking all along. You have intimated that this is a mystery and one of God´s secrets, and I have asked you how you know what is beyond the Scriptures. You have yet to answer this question.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 19, 2005)

I believe I have clearly answered the question and this thread is now just going back and forth; talking past one another. If there is nothing more to say, I will close it.

MAKE YOUR CLOSING STATEMENTS.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 19, 2005)

I apologize that I must be short because it's late here in Japan.


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> I will take from this that you equate biblical studies with "œnot taking God at His word."


Only if you insist I must.


> I do not want to know what God´s relationship with "œcovenant breakers" is; I want to know what God´s relationship with the reprobate covenant child is.


What is the difference? Was Esau not both reprobate and a covenant breaker? On what *Biblical* basis do you insist that the categories are different? If a person is in covenant with God and breaks the Covenant (because in the secret counsel of God, He is reprobate) then He is a Covenant breaker and a reprobate Covenant child. By definition a reprobate covenant child is a covenant breaker unless you believe a reprobate covenant child can keep the covenant.



> That is what I have been asking all along. You have intimated that this is a mystery and one of God´s secrets, and I have asked you how you know what is beyond the Scriptures. You have yet to answer this question.



And I answered you, as did others. I answered that God's relationship with the child is one of _Covenant_. He promises to be their God and calls them to be Holy as He is Holy. He promises to save them if they put their faith in Christ.

But you are not satisfied with that answer. You want to know about "adjectives" that describe what God thinks when He reflects upon a reprobate Covenant child. Please explain to me how that is not a speculative query.

[Edited on 10-19-2005 by SemperFideles]

[Edited on 10-19-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Peters (Oct 19, 2005)

> And I answered you, as did others. I answered that God's relationship with the child is one of Covenant. He promises to be their God and calls them to be Holy as He is Holy. He promises to save them if they put their faith in Christ.



No, 1 Corinthians 7:14 was used to say that a reprobate covenant child *is* holy before God. It was not used to say that God *calls* the reprobate covenant child to be holy. 



> But you are not satisfied with that answer. You want to know about "adjectives" that describe what God thinks when He reflects upon a reprobate Covenant child. Please explain to me how that is not a speculative query.



Ok, it is not speculative because the Bible tells us what God´s "œfeelings" are towards the reprobate (covenant child or not). Is it speculation to say that God hates the reprobate (Romans 9:13)? No, it is not, it is clearly stated.



> What is the difference? Was Esau not both reprobate and a covenant breaker? On what Biblical basis do you insist that the categories are different?



Esau was reprobate *before* he broke the covenant. Therefore, there must be a category for understanding Esau as a reprobate covenant breaker and a category for understanding Esau as reprobate non covenant breaker, otherwise to be a reprobate covenant breaker would be exactly the same thing as being a reprobate non covenant breaker"¦and they are not. 

Here are the biblical categories of relational distinction:

(1) God does not love the reprobate in any salvific sense.
(2) God does love His people, the bride, the church in a salvific sense (Ephesians 5:25-27). 

So in what way does God love the reprobate covenant child? It can only be in a common grace kind of way, because the child is reprobate and will never be of the people of God. 

In the eyes of God, therefore, the only *objective* difference between children is if they are children of God, not of believers and unbelievers.


----------



## pduggan (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_What is the difference? Was Esau not both reprobate and a covenant breaker?



I dunno. Esau might be a symbol of a reprobate without being one himself. I base that on the restoration of Esau with Jacob, the language of which is reiterated by Jesus himself in the parable of the prodigal son. If you don't like that idea, it would be kind of someone to explain that feature of the text otherwise.

To a final word on why its mystery:

Its a mystery because in one place the bible describes the reprobate as vessels of wrath. And in another place the bible describes ALL covenant children as holy. So if we are committed to the Bible, we have to say that the reprobate children are vessels of wrath and holy. If you DON'T think that's mysterious, more power to you. Most people think there's some mystery to that, and trying to be more definite about it in any way that goes beyond making the two apophatic limiting statements is seeking to go beyond what is written.


----------



## pduggan (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_So in what way does God love the reprobate covenant child? It can only be in a common grace kind of way, because the child is reprobate and will never be of the people of God.



The covenant thouigh includes the claim by God that 'he will be their god' This *isn't* common grace. Its grace thats found within the covenant. Much advantage over the heathen in every way.

Calvin speaks of this as "general election", If I recall correctly.

Look at Romans 11:28 


> As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.



Reprobate jews are in ome sense beloved for the fathers sake. How much more children of the new coevant?


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_What is the difference? Was Esau not both reprobate and a covenant breaker?
> ...



How mysterious is this:


> As it is written, "œJacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. (Romans 9:13)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 19, 2005)

The compund and divided senses of God clearly explain the principle. If everyone does not understand that, I suggest rereading the thread in it's entirety or getting a hold of Dr. McMahons book, "The Two Wills of God".

Closing gents.

[Edited on 10-19-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------

