# Infant baptism and crisis conversions



## Scott

I found this article good:

THE PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN, COVENANT NURTURE AND COVENANT SUCCESSION 
http://www.churchofthekingsacramento.com/presbyteriandoctrine.htm

I had long been bothered by the fact that many in the PCA believe that covenant children need to experience a crisis conversion experience in spite of their baptism and birthright as covenant children. The view that sees this as essential views covenant children as being unsaved and in the world until they have this experience, in spite of their baptism. It seems to me to make a nonsense of infant baptism. Further, it really blows the debate between credo and paedo baptists out of proportion. They are both basically revivalistic in their outlook and baptism is of little real significance. Both has as an initial to to evangelize their little pagan children, as opposed to disciple believing children.

I hope to get a few of the books mentioned in the article. Has anyone else read Lewis Bevens Schenck's The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant: An Historical Study of the Significance of Infant Baptism in the Presbyterian Church in America? I am looking forward to reading it.

Scott


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I found this article good:
> 
> THE PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN, COVENANT NURTURE AND COVENANT SUCCESSION
> http://www.churchofthekingsacramento.com/presbyteriandoctrine.htm
> 
> I had long been bothered by the fact that many in the PCA believe that covenant children need to experience a crisis conversion experience in spite of their baptism and birthright as covenant children. The view that sees this as essential views covenant children as being unsaved and in the world until they have this experience, in spite of their baptism. It seems to me to make a nonsense of infant baptism. Further, it really blows the debate between credo and paedo baptists out of proportion. They are both basically revivalistic in their outlook and baptism is of little real significance. Both has as an initial to to evangelize their little pagan children, as opposed to disciple believing children.
> 
> I hope to get a few of the books mentioned in the article. Has anyone else read Lewis Bevens Schenck's The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant: An Historical Study of the Significance of Infant Baptism in the Presbyterian Church in America? I am looking forward to reading it.
> 
> Scott



Scott,
Schenks book is an excellent example of the historical account of paedo baptism & Presbyterianism. Not many contemporary's will agree with him however; the PR idea doesn't go over all that well (I agree with the principle).

I agree with your statement above. The Presbyterian church has undermined their own theology. Like a virus, over time the contemporary idea of the illicit evangelicals has crept in and now is fully rearing it's ugly head. One fine example of this is the communicants class. Where is the faith I ask?

[Edited on 11-19-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## AdamM

In the WCF the practice of baptism is based upon the infants status as a member of the covenant (and therefore entitled to the sign of the covenant) rather then an assumption that the infant is regenerate. Regeneration may occur before, during or after baptism (or never,) but an Opus Operatum view of baptism is not found in our confessional standards or the scriptures. 

There is always the call for our covenant children to improve their baptism by closing with Christ by faith. There is nothing about being a member of the covenant (visible church) in the legal sense that necessarily removes the curse of original sin. Simply because the revivalists have mangled the practice doesn´t mean we abandon the doctrine of conversion and become Covenantal Nomists as some are doing today. We can reject the idea that a person´s conversion necessarily needs to fit into some template in any form such as crying buckets of tears or walking the aisle or never knowing a day when you didn´t know Christ. When and how the Lord brings people to faith is unique to every person who believes and no doubt that some won´t be able to remember a day when they didn´t believe and others will have dramatic stories, but if they are in Christ, they have with Him by personal faith. For what it's worth, Packer does an excellent job of explaining practice of Reformed Puritan evangelism in several books and the Puritans themselves wrote often on the need for conversion. 

The great Scottish Presbyterian divine William Guthrie (not exactly one of those nasty Southern Presbyterians or New England Puritans Schenck seems to think ruined everything) sums up the necessity of personal conversion clearly and concisely in this snippet from his work The Christians Great Interest: 



> 1. Believing on Christ must be personal; a man himself and in his own proper person must close with Christ Jesus--'The just shall live by his faith.' (Hab. 2: 4.) This saith, that it will not suffice for a man's safety and relief, that he is in covenant with God as a born member of the visible church, by virtue of the parent's subjection to God's ordinances: neither will it suffice that the person had the initiating seal of baptism added, and that he then virtually engaged to seek salvation by Christ's blood, as all infants do: neither does it suffice that men are come of believing parents; their faith will not instate their children into a right to the spiritual blessings of the covenant; neither will it suffice that parents did, in some respects, engage for their children, and give them away unto God: all these things do not avail. The children of the kingdom and of godly predecessors are cast out. Unless a man in his own person have faith in Christ Jesus, and with his own heart approve and acquiesce in that device of saving sinners, he cannot be saved. I grant, this faith is given unto him by Christ; but certain it is, that it must be personal.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Adam,
Sorry but the divines whom penned the WCF saw things differently than you are stating. You're assuming that they thought along those lines. This is where Schencks book is quite helpful.

[Edited on 11-19-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Just dealing with the WCF, WSC, WLC - the divines purposely did not make a difference between children being baptism (what that meant) and adult baptism (what that meant). For ANYONE baptized, the following was thier mind on the subject:

Q165: What is Baptism? 
A165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[1] to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[2] of remission of sins by his blood,[3] and regeneration by his Spirit;[4] of adoption,[5] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[6] and whereby the *parties * baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[7] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.[8] 

1. Matt. 28:19
2. Gal. 3:27
3. Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5
4. Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26
5. Gal. 3:26-27
6. I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 6:5
7. I Cor. 12:13
8. Rom. 6:4

It is not associated with "What is Baptism for adults vs. children?" Rather, "What is Baptism." Every "party" baptized.... This is what baptism is whenever it is done. That is what they discussed that the Assmebly and passed.


----------



## Scott

Adam: Many American Puritans had wrong views of the necessity of Christians to have crisis conversion experiences. This led to strange things such as the now-ridiculed half-way covenant in Puritan America.


----------



## wsw201

Scott,

Read Schenck's book. Interesting but I didn't find it compelling. That's probably why it was out of print for so long. I also read Rayburn's paper. After reading Schenck then re-reading Rayburn, I don't see the connection to "Covenant Succession" and PR. I also found it interesting that Rayburn makes it a rule that parents are responsible for the sins of their children, but then gives A-Z exception. Kinda like the IRS.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Wayne, were is this paper by Rayburn - I've not seen it.


----------



## AdamM

> Adam: Many American Puritans had wrong views of the necessity of Christians to have crisis conversion experiences. This led to strange things such as the now-ridiculed half-way covenant in Puritan America.



Scott, I agree with you on this. Taking any type of conversion experience and making that a rigid template that everybody needs to fit into is wrong. No doubt some folks are converted with a big crisis experience (as I am sure some here were,) but I have interviewed just as many people who have no idea when they were converted - they just know that they were at some time brought from death to life and believe. 

I think we need to be very careful not to as they say, throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to conversion. The abuse of the doctrine of conversion by some revivalists for us in no way should invalidate the proper understanding. All men and women are born dead in sin and unless they are converted will pay the penalty for their sins in hell. Being in the covenant (and having received the sing of the covenant) in terms of its administration (visible church) provides no assurance that we won't go to hell. Yes, God's ordinarily brings people to faith in the context of the covenant (visible church,) but since we understand that in its historical administration the covenant includes both the elect and the non-elect, we preach the general call to faith to our children and adults. 

Of course that need not be 25 verses of "Just as I Am" at the end of every sermon and a cup full of tears, but we really ought to be examining ourselves at whatever age and see if we believe.

[Edited on 20-11-2004 by AdamM]


----------



## Scott

Matt: The Rayburn paper is the one I linked to in the first post.

Adam: Remember some infants are saved from the womb, such as John the Baptist. 

Wayne: WHat do you mean by "PR?"


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> Adam: Many American Puritans had wrong views of the necessity of Christians to have crisis conversion experiences. This led to strange things such as the now-ridiculed half-way covenant in Puritan America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, I agree with you on this. Taking any type of conversion experience and making that a rigid template that everybody needs to fit into is wrong. No doubt some folks are converted with a big crisis experience (as I am sure some here were,) but I have interviewed just as many people who have no idea when they were converted - they just know that they were at some time brought from death to life and believe.
> 
> I think we need to be very careful not to as they say, throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to conversion. The abuse of the doctrine of conversion by some revivalists for us in no way should invalidate the proper understanding. All men and women are born dead in sin and unless they are converted will pay the penalty for their sins in hell. Being in the covenant (and having received the sing of the covenant) in terms of its administration (visible church) provides no assurance that we won't go to hell. Yes, God's ordinarily brings people to faith in the context of the covenant (visible church,) but since we understand that in its historical administration the covenant includes both the elect and the non-elect, we preach the general call to faith to our children and adults.
> 
> Of course that need not be 25 verses of "Just as I Am" at the end of every sermon and a cup full of tears, but we really ought to be examining ourselves at whatever age and see if we believe.
> 
> [Edited on 20-11-2004 by AdamM]
Click to expand...


There is also the additional evidence of Manuals used by Presbyterians in pre-Great Awakening Days (i.e. before the big bad revivalistic corruptions). The Presbyterians made long and arduous work of seeking out conversion experience and experimental knowledge of Christ. As a matter of fact, they drew most heavily on the Early Church catechesis models (that were administered to new converts). Has anyone read Clavin's questions regarding examination for communing? These materials belie Schenck's assumptions. The more I read Schenck and discuss these matters with sound theological men, the less I like his book and the less helpful it is.

There is a reason that Schenck is the darling of Wilkins, Schlissel et al.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I reject the "crisis conversion" alegations too. It's just rhetoric. I've been a member in a Dutch and OPC church, and along with all the Puritan literature I've read, I don't find any arguing for a "crisis" conversion, not even the Calvinistic revivalists. They all acknowledge the possibility, but it's one of many varieties of experiences regarding conversion. IN fact, great revivalists like Nettleton rejected such "crisis" conversion without first seeing some enduring fruit.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> There is a reason that Schenck is the darling of Wilkins, Schlissel et al.



Don't go there. These men warp the doctrine into a perversion.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Matt: The Rayburn paper is the one I linked to in the first post.
> 
> Adam: Remember some infants are saved from the womb, such as John the Baptist.
> 
> Wayne: WHat do you mean by "PR?"



Sorry - I missed reading the article. I will check it out.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason that Schenck is the darling of Wilkins, Schlissel et al.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't go there. These men warp the doctrine into a perversion.
Click to expand...


Help me to understand. How do you avoid the implications of Kevin Johnson with respect to Baptism in the Roman Catholic Church? (find it in the "Reformed Campbellites" thread) The answer can't be "Roman Catholic Baptism is invalid" since both Witsius and Turretin state it is valid.


----------



## wsw201

Scott,

"PR" is presumptive regeneration.


----------



## turmeric

I think I believe in Presumptive Election. You still have to close with Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I think I believe in Presumptive Election. You still have to close with Christ.



Meg,
So you have to see to believe? Why is it so important to witness a work?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I think I believe in Presumptive Election. You still have to close with Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meg,
> So you have to see to believe? Why is it so important to witness a work?
Click to expand...


Faith without works is dead. There must be fruit Scott. As children grow older, and as adults convert, they must bear fruit. Otherwise their profession is worth nothing.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I think I believe in Presumptive Election. You still have to close with Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meg,
> So you have to see to believe? Why is it so important to witness a work?
Click to expand...


Because that is how Christ designed it:



> Ephesians 5:5-6 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.





> 1 John 3:18-24 8 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment. 24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.





> 1 John 5:1-2 1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments.





> 1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.





> 1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.






> WCF 11:2 WCF 11.2 Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification;(1) *yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love*.(2)
> 
> (1)John 1:12; Rom. 3:28; Rom. 5:1.
> (2)James 2:17,22,26; Gal. 5:6.





> WCF 11:4 WCF 11.4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect;(1) and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification2) *nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.*(3)
> 
> (1)Gal. 3:8; 1 Pet. 1:2,19,20; Rom. 8:30.
> (2)Gal. 4:4; Rom. 4:25.
> (3)Col. 1:21,22; Gal. 2:16; Tit. 3:4-7





> WCF 10:2 WCF 10.2 This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man;(1) who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,(2) *he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.*(3)
> 
> (1)2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4,5; Eph. 2:4,5,8,9; Rom. 9:11.
> (2)1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7; Eph. 2:5.
> (3)John 6:37; Ezek. 36:27; John 5:25.




Notice the difference between the effectual call of the elect and the outward call of the non-elect:



> WLC 1:67-68 WLC 67 What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty power and grace,(1) whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto(2)) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit;(3) savingly enlightening their minds,(4) renewing and powerfully determining their wills,(5) so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing *and able freely to answer his call*, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.(6)
> 
> (1)John 5:25; Eph. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 1:8,9
> (2)Tit. 3:4,5; Eph. 2:4,5,7,8,9; Rom. 9:11
> (3)2 Cor. 5:20 compared with 2 Cor. 6:1,2; John 6:44; 2 Thess. 2:13,14
> (4)Acts 26:18; 1 Cor. 2:10,12
> (5)Ezek. 11:19; Ezek. 36:26,27; John 6:45
> (6)Eph. 2:5; Phil. 2:13; Deut. 30:6
> 
> WLC 68 Are the elect only effectually called? A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called;(1) although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word,(2) and have some common operations of the Spirit;(3) who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, *do never truly come to Jesus Christ.*(4)
> 
> (1)Acts 13:48
> (2)Matt. 22:14
> (3)Matt. 7:22; Matt. 13:20,21; Heb. 6:4-6
> (4)John 12:38-40; Acts 28:25-27; John 6:64,65; Ps. 81:11,12



This is nothing new.


----------



## Scott Bushey

To the above responses to me on my response to Meg; 
Unless I misunderstood Meg, I believe she was referring to the communicants class or an outward confession. When something like 'the close' or 'closing with Christ' is mentioned, it sounds Arminian. It smacks of these ridiculous events that the Arminian requires and even the present day PCA seek. These 'events' are not necessarily prerequisite in salvation. I will not look for anything of that nature from my children as if schooled correctly in the ways of the Lord, they could easily parrot the ideas even to no avail. Talk is cheap. Time is the only close worthy of any respect or consideration.

*How elementary is the concept that faith without works is dead? Would this be a new concept to me? Think about your responses. Don't just type for the sake of typing. Obviously I was not referring to this........Some of the responses at times are ridiculously fundamental. It's almost embarassing reading them. (I have no idea that faith without works is dead. Please submit yourselves to prayer in my behalf that God would convert me as I do not know the gospel). In one of my last threads with openAir Boy, Craid S. and Paul M. piped in with the same type of elementary response in regards to knowledge and faith and then left the thread before hearing the rationale supporting my position. It's goofy. Do I have to qualify every statement I make with a systematic? 

The communicants class; to me, is a joke and flies in the face of CT and faith. On one hand we say we trust God in His promise, on the other we have to 'see' and hear (as in an outward confession) things, just like the Arminian. We don't really trust God, we trust men. The comunicants class proves nothing. Just because a kid can parrot soemthing does not mean they are converted. The devils know the scriptures and even tremble; they are not saved! 

Megs statement had to do with PE and the "closing". The closing is something that the Arminian does, i.e. the altar call, the confession, the prayer. These things the Arminian needs. He does not trust God. He is like Thomas; he must put his fingers in the hole before he will believe. 

If my child has no 'experience', no outwards statements, yet lives like a believer, has good works, I will look for nothing but depend by faith on Gods promise to me and my seed! I will trust Christ. I will not goad a confession out of her or ask that she take the communicants class. In fact, I will fight tooth and nail against it when the time comes.

Fred,
The passages you cite, they are not reflective of any 'close'. They are reflective of fruit of the disciple. This has nothing to do with 'closing' or what I meant. The WCF statements are along the same lines. 

The chatechism says alot!
Q165: What is Baptism? 
A165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[1] *to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,*[2] of *remission of sins* by his blood,[3] and *regeneration by his Spirit*;[4] of *adoption*,[5] and *resurrection unto everlasting life*;[6] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[7] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.[8] 

1. Matt. 28:19
2. Gal. 3:27
3. Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5
4. Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26
5. Gal. 3:26-27
6. I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 6:5
7. I Cor. 12:13
8. Rom. 6:4

and from Calvins institutes:

14. Sign and thing 

Now that the end to which the Lord had regard in the institution of baptism has been explained, it is easy to judge in what way we ought to use and receive it. For inasmuch as it is appointed to elevate, nourish, and confirm our faith, we are to receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded that it is himself who speaks to us by means of the sign; that it is himself who washes and purifies us, and effaces the remembrance of our faults; that it is himself who makes us the partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed with him we may be accounted the children of God. These things I say, we ought to feel as truly and certainly in our mind as we see our body washed, immersed, and surrounded with water. For this analogy or similitude furnishes the surest rule in the sacraments, viz., that in corporeal things we are to see spiritual, just as if they were actually exhibited to our eye, since the Lord has been pleased to represent them by such figures; not that such graces are included and bound in the sacrament, so as to be conferred by its efficacy, but only that by this badge the Lord declares to us that he is pleased to bestow all these things upon us. Nor does he merely feed our eyes with bare show; he leads us to the actual object, and effectually performs what he figures. 

15. Baptism as confirming faith 

We have a proof of this in Cornelius, the centurion, who, after he had been previously endued with the graces of the Holy Spirit, was baptised for the remission of sins, not seeking a fuller forgiveness from baptism, but a surer exercise of faith; nay, an argument for assurance from a pledge. It will, perhaps, be objected, Why did Ananias say to Paul that he washed away his sins by baptism, (Acts 22:16; cf. ch 9:17-18) if sins are not washed away by the power of baptism? I answer, we are said to receive, procure, and obtain, whatever according to the perception of our faith is exhibited to us by the Lord, whether he then attests it for the first time, or gives additional confirmation to what he had previously attested. All then that Ananias meant to say was, Be baptised, Paul, that you may be assured that your sins are forgiven you. In baptism, the Lord promises forgiveness of sins: receive it, and be secure. 

I have no intention however, to detract from the power of baptism. I would only add to the sign the substance and reality, inasmuch as God works by external means. But from this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith. If faith is wanting, it will be an evidence of our ingratitude by which we are proved guilty before God, for not believing the promise there given. 

In so far as it is a sign of our confession, we ought thereby to testify that we confide in the mercy of God, and are pure, through the forgiveness of sins which Christ Jesus has procured for us; that we have entered into the Church of God, that with one consent of faith and love we may live in concord with all believers. This last was Paul's meaning, when he said that "by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body," (1 Cor. 12: 13.) 


God commands I place the sign upon Zoe; I respond in faith. I did this based upon the above. If I felt the way many of you feel in regards to your childs position in Christ and what baptism actually means to you, I would have not submitted her to it and I would have waited then until I saw fruit and actually heard a confession (ultimately Baptististic principles) 
God commands I rear her in the way she should go; I will respond in obedience. Gods word says that if I rear her in the way she should go, she will not depart from it. This I trust. God is faithful, men are not. I will not be double minded. I will not doubt God. I will however hold my daughter responsible. If she is faithless, I will not hold God responsible for her faithlessness. God is never irresponsible.

From the WCF:

Westminster Confession of Faith


Chapter xxviii

Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world. 

It's early and I'm cranky. Forgive me, but I'm getting tired of the nonsensical posts. 

For the record, this is the position Schenck's book endorses.


[Edited on 11-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco

Scott,

I have no idea where you got the idea of "communicant's class" or even "outward confession" from Meg's post. To close with Christ is to show actual conversion.

Yes, this is elemntary. Yes you know this. But that is NOT Schenck's and his follower's position. For them, if a child has doubts, he is not pointed to Christ, he is pointed to his baptism. There is a difference.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Scott,
> 
> I have no idea where you got the idea of "communicant's class" or even "outward confession" from Meg's post. To close with Christ is to show actual conversion.
> 
> Yes, this is elemntary. Yes you know this. But that is NOT Schenck's and his follower's position. For them, if a child has doubts, he is not pointed to Christ, he is pointed to his baptism. There is a difference.



Pointing one to their baptism is pointing one to Christ; Christ and Baptism are one in the same in many ways. Pointing my child to their baptism and what it holds (not the water) is imperative.


For the record, how do you know Meg didn't mean 'an outward principle'? Here's her quote:



> I think I believe in Presumptive Election. You still have to close with Christ.



Meg implied that she holds presumptively, yet *you still need to 'close' with Christ * is needed. To me this sounded as if a work was needed to close the conversion. The only thing needed for conversion to occur is hearing Gods word. If I was wrong, Meg, will have to forgive me.

I disagree about your analysis of Schenck. I believe (embedded) within what he wrote, this is what he meant.

And for the record, if it is _elementary_, why pontificate?

You mention "actual conversion"; only Christ knows His converted. Even Judas showed fruit. Based upon this, I lean into Christ. I go solely upon faith. God will work it out.......

[Edited on 11-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco

The phrase "close with Christ" has specific meaning in Reformed theology. Here are a few examples, more later after Church:



> The Second Doctrine, resulting more directly from the words, was, That the Lord´s Spirit poured out in plenty upon his people will quickly bring them to an embracing of him, and to a public, acknowledgment and avouching of the same. Thus it was with the people of God in the text-no sooner does the Lord "pour water upon the thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground," even his Sprat upon the spiritual seed of Israel, but presently they are at covenanting work and subscribing work; "One shall say, I am the Lord´s," etc. In prosecuting this doctrine he shewed first negatively that he was not for that occasion largely to treat of the several ways that the Spirit useth to manage this work of engaging the hearts of his people to embrace Christ, and so to make a public avouchment of the same; whether he doth it by representing to their views the sweet and precious promises made in the covenant of grace, thereby sweetly alluring and drawing them with the cords of love to himself, or by holding forth to their consciences the terrors and threatenings of the law, and thereby powerfully constraining them to fly to him as to the city of refuge from the face of Divine Justice pursuing them: for seeing the Spirit is a free agent and blows both how and where he listeth, he may engage a soul to close with Christ by either of these ways, though most usually he doth it by a conjunction and concurrence of both. Only this ought to satisfy us, that what way soever the Spirit taketh in bringing a soul to embrace Christ upon the gospel terms, he so manageth the work as that the end is effectually and infallibly attained. (THE
> AUCHENAUGH RENOVATION OF THE NATIONAL COVENANT AND SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT; WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SINS AND ENGAGEMENT TO DUTIES,
> AS THEY WERE RENEWED AT AUCHENSAUGH, NEAR DOUGLAS,
> JULY 24, 1712)





> onathan Edwards:
> 
> The apostasy of man summarily consists in departing from the true God, to idols; forsaking his Creator and setting up other things in his room...The gods which a natural man worships, instead of the God that made him, are himself and the world...When we say that natural man are not willing to come to Christ, it is not meant that they are not willing to be delivered from hell; for without doubt, no natural man is willing to go to hell. Nor is it meant, that they are not willing that Christ should keep them from going to hell. Without doubt, natural men under awakenings often greatly desire this. But this does not argue that they are willing to come to Christ: for, not withstanding their desire to be delivered from hell, their hearts do not close with Christ, but are averse to him...They are not willing to take Christ as he is; they would fain divide him. There are some things in him that they like, and others that they greatly dislike; but consider him as he is, and he is offered to them in the gospel, and they are not willing to accept Christ; for in doing so, they must of necessity part with all their sins; they must sell the world, and part with their own righteousness. But they had rather, for the present, run the venture of going to hell, than do that...He is a Savior appointed of God; he anointed him, and sent him into the world. And in performing the work of redemption, he wrought the works of God; always did those things that pleased him; and all that he does as a Savior, is to his glory. And one great thing he aimed at in redemption, was to deliver them from their idols, and bring them to God. (The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: Banner, 1974), Volume 2, Discourse: Men Naturally are God´s Enemies, pp. 132, 138-139)





> The third difference is that spurious believers never close with Christ and all the inconveniences that follow (and believe me there are some!). They want Christ but they have never done what Jesus commanded, that is, counted the cost (Luke 14:25-33). Every serious Christian knows that the Christian life is not a gospel hayride. All is not "happy, happy, happy" or "jolly, jolly, jolly" all the time. The language of the Christian life is also "I war", " I fight", "I wrestle", "I strive". (Ernest Reseinger)





> It will greatly add to their torment and anguish to consider that they were sometime near the enjoyment of this blissful presence of Christ. Pardon, and peace, and love, and life, and the endless fruition of the blessed Jesus were tendered to them, were nigh them, were at the very door of their hearts. They were solemnly commanded, lovingly invited, severely threatened, sweetly allured, and pathetically persuaded to accept of Christ and grace; yea, and heaven, and happiness, and eternal life; yea, and their hearts began to relent, and to close with the entreaties of the gospel. They were almost persuaded to be Christians indeed; there was but a little, a very little, between them and Christ. (George Swinnock)





> "Believing on Christ must be personal; a man himself and in his own proper person must close with Christ Jesus-"˜The just shall live by his faith.´ (Hab. 2:4.) This says, that it will not suffice for a man´s safety and relief, that he is in covenant with God as a born member of the visible church, by virtue of the parent´s subjection to God´s ordinances: neither will it suffice that the person had the initiating seal of baptism added, and that he then virtually engaged to seek salvation by Christ´s blood, as all infants do: neither does it suffice that men are come of believing parents; their faith will not instate their children into a right to the spiritual blessings of the covenant; neither will it suffice that parents did, in some respects, engage for their children, and give them away unto God: all these things do not avail. The children of the kingdom and of godly predecessors are cast out. Unless a man in his own person have faith in Christ Jesus, and with his own heart approve and acquiesce in that device of saving sinners, he cannot be saved. I grant, this faith is given unto him by Christ; but certain it is, that it must be personal." (William Guthrie, The Christians Great Interest



This is just what I could find in 10 minutes. Far too often Westminsterian phrases like "receive Christ" and "close with Christ" are accused as being Armnian. They aren't. And there is a reason they use those phrases.


----------



## Scott Bushey

OK. Point taken. Unfortunately Fred, in this day, even in our own churches, when someone uses these terms, they are not echoing Swinnock, et al. , they are meaning the epoch that occurs within most present day churches which present themselves in emotionally charged events like the outward confession, altar call and even the communicants class.

Possibly I have done to Tumeric exactly what I am chiding everyone else for doing to me. Meg, care to illuminate us? If I was wrong in the evaluation of your statement, please forgive me?

[Edited on 11-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> OK. Point taken. Unfortunately Fred, in this day, even in our own churches, when someone uses these terms, they are not echoing Swinnock, et al. , they are meaning the epoch that occurs within most present day churches which present themselves in emotionally charged events like the outward confession, altar call and even the communicants class.
> 
> Possibly I have done to Tumeric exactly what I am chiding everyone else for doing to me. Meg, care to illuminate us? If I was wrong in the evaluation of your statement, please forgive me?
> 
> [Edited on 11-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]



I agree Scott. And part of what we need to do is to get back to the language used in the Confession, because it is Biblical language. There is a reason we speak of closing with Christ. It is because we seek to see evidence of salvation.

I want to add here that I don't think you are off the mark (or at least far from it). I'm not trying to put you into a corner. I am only very aware of the fact that our "conversation" is going on "in front of" many people (many of whom do not even post and who may not even be members)) and I want to be precise in terminology.

We must see evidence of conversion, not merely trust to baptism and see a lack of reprobation. I don't think you are saying this, but many in our day are. Let me quote John Owen's masterpiece on Regeneration in his Pneumatologia (On the Holy Spirit), vol 3:



> First, Regeneration doth not consist in a participation of the ordinance of baptism and a profession of the doctrine of repentance. This is all that some will allow unto it, to the utter rejection and overthrow of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: for the dispute in this matter is not, whether the ordinances of the gospel, as baptism, do really communicate internal grace unto them that are, as to the outward manner of their administration, duly made partakers of them, whether ex opere operato, as the Papists speak, or as a federal means of the conveyance and communication of that grace which they betoken and are the pledges of; but, whether the outward susception of the ordinance, joined with a profession of repentance in them that are adult, be not the whole of what is called regeneration. The vanity of this presumptuous folly, destructive of all the grace of the gospel, invented to countenance men in their sins, and to hide from them the necessity of being born again, and therein of turning unto God, will be laid open in our declaration of the nature of the work itself. For the present, the ensuing reasons will serve to remove it out of our way: "”
> 
> 1. Regeneration doth not consist in these things, which are only outward signs and tokens of it, or at most instituted means of effecting it; for the nature of things is different and distinct from the means and evidences or pledges of them: but such only is baptism, with the profession of the doctrine of it, as is acknowledged by all who have treated of the nature of that sacrament.
> 
> 2. The apostle really states this case, 1 Peter 3:21, "œIn answer whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 269 The outward administration of this ordinance, considered materially, reacheth no farther but to the washing away of "œthe filth of the flesh;" but more is signified thereby. There is denoted in it the restipulation of a "œgood conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" from the dead, or a "œconscience purged from dead works to serve the living God," Hebrews 9:14, and quickened by virtue of his resurrection unto holy obedience. See Romans 6:3-7.
> 
> 3. The apostle Paul doth plainly distinguish between the outward ordinances, with what belongs unto a due participation of them, and the work of regeneration itself: Galatians 6:15, "œIn Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature;" "” for as by "œcircumcision" the whole system of Mosaical ordinances is intended, so the state of "œuncircumcision," as then it was in the professing Gentiles, supposed a participation of all the ordinances of the gospel; but from them all he distinguisheth the new creation, as that which they may be without, and which being so, they are not available in Christ Jesus.
> 4. If this were so, then all that are duly baptized, and do thereon make profession of the doctrine of it, "” that is, of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, "” must of necessity be regenerate. But this we know to be otherwise. For instance, Simon the magician was rightly and duly baptized, for he was so by Philip the evangelist; which he could not be without a profession of faith and repentance. Accordingly, it is said that he "œbelieved," Acts 8:13, "” that is, made a profession of his faith in the gospel. Yet he was not regenerate; for at the same time he had "œneither part nor lot in that matter," his "œheart not being right in the sight of God," but was "œin the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity," verses 21, 23; which is not the description of a person newly regenerate and born again. Hence the cabalistical Jews, who grope in darkness after the old notions of truth that were among their forefathers, do say, that at the same instant wherein a man is made "œa proselyte of righteousness," there comes a new soul into him from heaven, his old pagan soul vanishing or being taken away. The introduction of a new spiritual principle to be that unto the soul which the soul is unto the body naturally is that which they understand; or they choose thus to express the reiterated promise of taking away the "œheart of stone," and giving a "œheart of flesh" in the place of it.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Fred,
You write:



> We must see evidence of conversion, not merely trust to baptism and see a lack of reprobation.



But what of thoses cases where there is no evidence of covnversion. These are covenant children who have been responsibly reared properly. They grow up good children, and early into their adulthood, they hold to those teachings. They attend church, they align themselves with the church, and acknowledge Christ as Lord; are never disrespectful to anyone and seem to be the perfect child/young adult. There is no outward epoch _per se_. Are we to look for something else? I say, no. I would look to their baptism and the promise alone. Will they _close with Christ_? Only he knows. Time will tell. Evidence of conversion does not make one a true believer. This is why I say, the promise is more dependable than my measuring stick.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> You write:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We must see evidence of conversion, not merely trust to baptism and see a lack of reprobation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what of thoses cases where there is no evidence of covnversion. These are covenant children who have been responsibly reared properly. They grow up good children, and early into their adulthood, they hold to those teachings. They attend church, they align themselves with the church, and acknowledge Christ as Lord; are never disrespectful to anyone and seem to be the perfect child/young adult. There is no outward epoch _per se_. Are we to look for something else? I say, no. I would look to their baptism and the promise alone. Will they _close with Christ_? Only he knows. Time will tell. Evidence of conversion does not make one a true believer. This is why I say, the promise is more dependable than my measuring stick.
Click to expand...


Scott,

Notice what I did not say. I said "evidence of conversion," not "evidence of a dramatic and epochal conversion." I am not arguing for a Arminian "I went from drugs and sex to Jesus" But every Christian will show evidence of conversion.

First, it is ALWAYS bad theology to start from the exception and try and make a judgment. When coming up with a theology of regeneration, the last place to start is with "elect infants." Owen makes this case wodnerfully using the example of infants in the same category as the apostle Paul:



> Mostly, God makes use of the preaching of the word; thence called "œthe ingrafted word, which is able to save our souls," James 1:21; and the "œincorruptible seed," by which we are "œborn again," 1 Peter 1:23. Sometimes it is wrought without it; as in all those who are regenerate before they come to the use of reason, or in their infancy. Sometimes men are called, and so regenerate, in an extraordinary manner; as was Paul. But mostly they are so in and by the use of ordinary means, instituted, blessed, and sanctified of God to that end and purpose.



But Christ does say:

We are given a measuring stick. It is not ours, but Christ's. Christ never says (nor does the OT) that we are to judge someone's regeneration (whether ours, or our children's or another's) by looking to their baptism/circumcision. We are called to look for fruit. It need not be flashy fruit. It need not be radical fruit. But it WILL be fruit. The Bible is replete with instances of this - as we said, it is basic.

One on hand it is called the _practical syllogism_:

*Query*: How do I know I am elect and regenerate?
*Premise*: The elect and regenerate bear testimony, evidence of their regeneration, obedience to the lawand the fruit the Spirit.
*Premise 2*: I see evidenence of the fruit of the Spirit in my life.
Conclusion: I am elect and regenerate.

This was used to great effect by the Puritans because of their (Biblical) emphasis on the demands of the law and the ensuing difficulties that raised for assurance. (Aside: what was the pastoral topic that the Puritans as a group dealt most with and wrote most extensively on? Election? No. The sacraments? No. It was assurance)

So what we look for is fruit to tell what the tree is, not even the promise of the tree. What does this mean practically? It means that while I do not need to see my child get into drugs and fornication so that they can "get saved" afterwards, it does mean that if my child, even though he has been baptized and is in the church:


doesn't want to read his Bible
has no desire to pray
does not show evidence of patience, gentleness
does not desire to talk about Christ
does not DESIRE to obey his parents
does not want to be among God's people
etc

That I am bound to point him to his need for conversion, to close with Christ, to profess his faith in Christ in such a way that it bears fruit. Until he does that, I can have no assurance that he does. I have the promise - but the promise prompts me to ACTION, not rest. The fact that I have the promise gives me hope and assurance of success (by God's work, not mine) in my urging the child to close with Christ. It is like the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel. Great hope and assurance of success, but you still need to get the gun out and pull the trigger.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason that Schenck is the darling of Wilkins, Schlissel et al.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't go there. These men warp the doctrine into a perversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Help me to understand. How do you avoid the implications of Kevin Johnson with respect to Baptism in the Roman Catholic Church? (find it in the "Reformed Campbellites" thread) The answer can't be "Roman Catholic Baptism is invalid" since both Witsius and Turretin state it is valid.
Click to expand...


No, that is not what I mean. They warp PR to suit that birth = salvation, not the sacrament. Schlissel, for example, is not resting on the reality fo the promise in PR and baptism as being pessemistic unless otherwise demonstrably seen later int he child's life, but saying that he think because of BIRTH (that his kinds are born by him) that he presumes that they are elect. That is not based onthe promise, but on an assumption made that is simply erroneous, and Judiazing. That is the perversion.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Fred,
I think we are talking about 2 different things. I am not saying we are to not judge the tree by it's fruit; we should. I am saying however that not every conversion is measurable either by an epochal event or in many ways measurable at all. When I was at Emmanual baptist church, many family's had children whom were approaching adult hood who always acted as the believer. They never acted as an unbeliever. What of them? How do you measure that?

In Schencks book, he quotes Dr. Atwater:



> From earliest infancy the spirit which surrounded the child was to be the spirit not of the world, but of true religion. The parent covenanted on his part, so far as he acted for the child, or exerted influence in molding his conduct, feelings, and principles, to guide him according to his bent in the formation of right and practical habits; in short,to train him to act, feel, and think as a child of God. And whether he remembers the time and manner of the beginning and progressive development of these states of mind and heart, or whether these have ingrained themselves so imperceptibly into the warp and woof of his inner being that he can mark no distinct epoch or hinge point in his career, as the crisis of the new birth, * it is enough that he can say, "I am a child of God" *.



This is where one would point their child to their baptism as evidence of their position in Christ, i.e. the promise.



[Edited on 11-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> I think we are talking about 2 different things. I am not saying we are to not judge the tree by it's fruit; we should. I am saying however that not every conversion is measurable either by an epochal event or in many ways measurable at all.



Scott,

We may be saying two different things. But your last sentence I quoted above is the trouble for me. A conversion that is unmeasurable is not a conversion. the only exception would be "elect infants" and no one - not even the Westminster divines - is about to draw normative inferences from that. There is good reason for that. We have thousands - perhaps tens of thousands depending on how you consider them - of examples of the people of God bearing fruit. We have two, maybe, possible, examples of elect infants in Jeremiah and John the Baptist. And in both those cases we cannot be sure if the spirit's work is in reference to the fact that they were prophets or regenerate. There are no (as far as I can tell) such examples of non-prophet elect infants in Scripture.

The pastoral point is that we point our children to the Scriptures and their fruit, not their baptism, finally. Baptism is worthless without faith, and faith comes from the hearing of the Word. Baptism is a source of assurance to the one who bears fruit. The sacraments are not mystical, as Schenck appears to claim that they are. They are just like the Word - they speak to the mind through the other 4 senses, whereas the Word speaks primarily to the ear-gate.

Have you read Calvin's communicant's questions? If not you should. Once you see the incredible level of detail of knowledge and fruit he requires from children to partake of the Supper, you cannot help but see that Schenck misrepresents him. Calvin never points these children to their baptism and says, "partake, you are a Christian, trust in you baptism." Instead he asks question after question about obedience, fruit and knowledge. And Calvin is not unique in this - it was the overwhelming (if not unanimous) practice of the Magisterial Reformers.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I am saying however that not every conversion is measurable either by an epochal event or in many ways measurable at all.



I agree (and I think Fred is agreeing) with the first part of your statement, but not the second. Indeed, there will not always be "an epochal event" or, as Fred put it, "flashy fruit" or "radical fruit" accompanying true conversion, but there will nonetheless inevitably be fruit, be it ever so subtle and "natural." You seem to implicitly acknowledge that in your above post by speaking of "children whom were approaching adult hood _who always acted as the believer_" (emphasis mine). We should indeed point them to their baptism as the sign and seal of their covenant status, but likewise, the presence or lack of fruit in their lives points toward either the gradual embracing or rejecting of that status, and both should drive us to further instruct and admonish them in God's truth, but the former must indeed serve to confirm the presumed efficacy of the baptism, again, be it ever so subtle or seemingly "natural."


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I am saying however that not every conversion is measurable either by an epochal event or in many ways measurable at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree (and I think Fred is agreeing) with the first part of your statement, but not the second. Indeed, there will not always be "an epochal event" or, as Fred put it, "flashy fruit" or "radical fruit" accompanying true conversion, but there will nonetheless inevitably be fruit, be it ever so subtle and "natural." You seem to implicitly acknowledge that in your above post by speaking of "children whom were approaching adult hood _who always acted as the believer_" (emphasis mine). We should indeed point them to their baptism as the sign and seal of their covenant status, but likewise, the presence or lack of fruit in their lives points toward either the gradual embracing or rejecting of that status, and both should drive us to further instruct and admonish them in God's truth, but the former does indeed serve to confirm the presumed efficacy of the baptism, again, be it ever so subtle or seemingly "natural."
Click to expand...


Yes. This is exactly my point. And it is this view of baptsm that has not been "lost" in Presbyterianism. What has been "lost" is Schenck's view - which was never held by the divines or Northern or Southern Presbyterianism, that one can hold a child (especially as one grows to maturity) regenerate simply because of the promise of baptism apart from fruit. This is nonsensical, since one of the main things sealed and symbolized by baptism is a fruitful life:



> Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to *walk in the newness of life**. (WCF 28.1)
> 
> Or do you not know that ï»¿ï»¿as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus ï»¿ï»¿were baptized into His death? ï»¿ Therefore we were ï»¿ï»¿buried with Him through baptism into death, that ï»¿ï»¿just as Christ was raised from the dead by ï»¿ï»¿the glory of the Father, *ï»¿ï»¿even so we also should walk in newness of life*. (Rom. 6:3-4)



So Hodge in his commentary:



> washing with water represents washing of the Spirit; washing of the Spirit unites to Christ; union with Christ involves all the consequences above mentioned (Commentary on the Confession, _in loc_.)



Vincent makes the same link between true baptism and the fruit of the Spirit:



> QUESTION 11: What is sealed and engaged on our part, by being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
> ANSWER: By our being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is sealed and engaged on our part, that we will be the Lord´s and that: 1. Wholly: soul and body with all our powers, faculties, and members, are to be employed by him as instruments of righteousness and new obedience. 2. Only the Lord´s: therefore we engage to renounce the service of the devil, and the flesh, and the world, and to fight under Christ´s banner against these enemies of the Lord and of our souls. "œï»¿We are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newness of life. Reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin but alive unto God. Let not sin, therefore, reign, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof: neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead; and your members as instruments of righteousness unto Godï»¿" (ï»¿Rom 6:4ï»¿, ï»¿11"“13ï»¿).
> (Vincent, on WSC 95)



Again, we are not saying that an Arminian display is necessary. But SOME display is necessary.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Again, we are not saying that an Arminian display is necessary. But SOME display is necessary.



Fred,
I believe the question remains as to what would be a 'display'? The person I am speaking of has always acted as the believer, from birth, would this person need to do anything more, i.e. the communicants class?

[Edited on 11-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we are not saying that an Arminian display is necessary. But SOME display is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fred,
> I believe the question remains as to what would be a 'display'? The person I am speaking of has always acted as the believer, would this person need to do anything more, i.e. the communicants class?
Click to expand...


If by "acting as a believer" you mean showing fruit of the Spirit, then I would say that a class is not necessary, but an examination is. Again, I reference Calvin's practice, since Schenck makes so much of Calvin's view of covenant children. Seminary graduates today would have a hard time getting admitted to the Lord's Table with the amount of experimental knowledge Calvin required.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Fred,
What will an examination prove? 

~Side note: 
Listening to Wilson and White: Did I just hear both White and Wilson say that if one has doubts of their faith to "look to their baptism"???

[Edited on 11-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> What will an examination prove?
> 
> ~Side note:
> Listening to Wilson and White: Did I just hear both White and Wilson say that if one has doubts of their faith to "look to their baptism"???
> 
> [Edited on 11-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]



An examination will prove whether the profession is credible or not; whether the fruit is evidenced or not. That is one of the functions of the gift of the elders to the church - to help the Christian with his assurance so that it is not merely subjective. you see the objectivity is given by the Church, not the sacraments (we are not ex opere operato).

Again, if examination is not useful, why was it used without fail and in such a rigorous fashion by Calvin? I don't think that question can be answered by a Schenck-like position. According to Schenck, Calvin would have said you have no business examining covenant children. And yet Calvin's practice was 180 degrees from that. The average PCA communicant's class and interview is a complete joke when compared to Calvin's practice. Why is that?

Either Calvin was a hypocrite, a moron, or was bullied into doing something he did not believe in. the problem there is that we have no evidence of the first two, and tons of evidence that Calvin would not be bullied (e.g. the attempt by Geneva to admit the Libertines to the Table). So the answer must be something else. I submit it is that Schenck has misread Calvin. It is easy to do. Especially when Calvin speaks of regeneration - since he uses the term in a broader sense than Owen. For Calvin, regeneration is more like "conversion" or "salvation" and includes all sorts of things in the ordo salutis. For Owen, it is much more refined. It is still more circumscribed and technical by someone like Murray or Hodge. That is why Schenck can pit Calvin against the Calvinists and push his own agenda.

This issue is MUCH larger than Schenck wants it to be. have you read A Brakel? Banvinck? Owen's Volume 3? Hughes Oliphant Old's work on _The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the 16th Century_? If not, you must.


----------



## turmeric

Hello, just got on here - Scott, I accept your apology, I got the phrase "close with Christ" from John Owen, not from an Arminian. I am a new member of the PCA, and, at my church baptized children are admitted to communion after examination, as far as I know, we don't have communion classes, whatever those are. By closing with Christ I don't mean any "sawdust trail" stuff, I mean, either a point in time conversion or creditable confession, and both must have fruit. Believe me, I made a profession and was baptised (believers' baptism) at a Dispensational church but was not converted for many years, it's not just a Presbyterian problem; and my case proves that Arminian measures, e.g. insisting on an experience, don't work either, only the Word of God & the activity of the Holy Spirit do.


----------



## Scott

> For them, if a child has doubts, he is not pointed to Christ, he is pointed to his baptism. There is a difference.





> The pastoral point is that we point our children to the Scriptures and their fruit, not their baptism, finally. Baptism is worthless without faith, and faith comes from the hearing of the Word.



I don't see why you would point someone to the scripture but not baptism. Both the Word and baptism are external means of grace. I think you should point them both, as well as to prayer. 

I think it is important to remember that the Word is worthless without faith too. 

As a general matter, one of the purposes of a seal is to attest to the validity of something. If they seal does not do that, it is without value. Baptism is supposed to be God's seal on the authenticity of the member of the covenant. It seems to me that under the crises conversion theory, baptism does not really serve as a seal. 

I think that is one reason we see proponents of the crises conversion theory use other things to attest to the validity of conversion, precisely because baptism no longer serves that function in their theology. Examples of substitute seals are a walk down the isle, a sinner's prayer, or ever stranger things. Bill Gothard, for example, teaches children to make a sign of the day they "convert" and plant it in their yard. I know of another parachurch that has people fill out little cards or certificates, which record the date of "conversion" rather than baptism. 

I think these are natural consequences of insisting on a crises conversion in addition to baptism. People need objective assurance and if baptism cannot provide that something else will. The main difference in these cases is that one is (or is supposed to be) a sign and seal from God and the others are simply manmade records.


----------



## Scott

I think this discussion has other implications too. One popular parnting program produced by crises conversion people teach expressly that parents should not teach their children to pray in Jesus' name until they convert. They can pray to the Father but Jesus is not their savior yet. This makes total sense if you insist on the conversion theory. 

I think this is a flipside of the questions about why accepting Schenk's position does not lead to paedocommunion. Teaching an uncoverted kid to pray to Christ, be moral, etc. is teaching the kid legalism and hypcorisy.

Scott

[Edited on 11-22-2004 by Scott]


----------



## AdamM

I think RC Jr's thoughts below on the situation are relevant. If baptism does not function ex opere operato, then pointing someone to their baptism for assurance hardly solves anything. In other words, if baptised folks who have remained in the visible church die and go to hell, then how does baptism function as a basis of assurance? 



> Cutting Off One´s Nose
> 
> I know how people struggle with assurance. Having spent the better part of my adult life sitting beside a phone attached to a toll-free number, while working at one ministry or another, I´ve received my share of calls for help. Half of the calls are some variation of the assurance question. Half of them are people fearful they have committed the unpardonable sin (those are the easy ones"”if you´re worried about it, you haven´t done it.) The other half were simple fears that they weren´t saved, usually couched as, "œHow can I know that I´m elect?"
> 
> My deep pastoral resources always float to the surface and I reply, "œYou can´t possibly know; why would you want to?" Too many people, instead of being humbled by the discovery of the sovereignty of God, decide to take a look around. And they end up in some pretty deep weeds. The question, I tell my insecure friend, isn´t whether or not you are elect. The question is whether or not you trust in the finished work of Christ alone. Do you throw yourself on the mercy of God in Christ?
> 
> Given my own experience then, in dealing with this common and poignant pastoral issue, I appreciate the clarion call of my friends from Auburn Avenue to lift our eyes up off our navels. We are not to be suspicious of the depths of the grace of God. We are not to look to ourselves but to Christ. He is our surety.
> 
> What I don´t understand, however, is how their solution helps the problem. Looking to ones baptism is all well and good, if it really works ex opere operato. The trouble is, of course, that everyone concedes, even the Baptists, that there are wet headed people in hell. Here is the good news coming from Auburn Avenue"”all who have been baptized receive every benefit in Christ. And here is the bad news"”except those who are reprobate do not receive persevering grace.
> 
> Assurance, according to how I understand my friends, isn´t found in the love one has for Christ. All who are baptized have that. It isn´t found in growing in grace. All who are baptized have that. It isn´t found in a heart that trusts in Christ. All who are baptized have that. It isn´t found in the indwelling Spirit. All who are baptized have that.
> 
> So how can you know? What separates the reprobate baptized and the elect baptized is whether you are in the faith when you die. So if you want assurance while still living, all you have left is to figure out whether you are elect or not. We´re right back where we started from.
> 
> This doctrine likewise destroys the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. The doctrine does not now nor did it ever hold that those who persevere will persevere, and God knows who they are. It has always held that those who are in stay in, and those who do not stay in never were in. Of course, as I said at Auburn Avenue II, denying the P in TULIP doesn´t make you a heretic"”it makes you a Lutheran.
> 
> The long and the short of it is that I am puzzled. I may have bungled what my friends are teaching. If so, I apologize. If not, I´d love to understand how this response to a "œpastoral concern" is pastoral at all.


----------



## Scott

Is baptism is a seal (attestation) from God (properly performed by God working through his minister), then the confidence it gives the believer is an important consideration.

It is surprising to me that so many reformed and other Portestants have doubt equal to the average Catholic. From a practical perspective it seem that both systems produce uncertainty. The American Puritans were certainly preoccupied with wondering about their individual salvation. Boy, reading their history and personal testimonies, there was allot of morbid introspection. Where is the joy of simple family life? It would be terrible for one of my children to sit around constantly wondering "am I _really_ a member of this family?

[Edited on 11-22-2004 by Scott]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Is baptism is a seal (attestation) from God (properly performed by God working through his minister), then the confidence it gives the believer is an important consideration.
> 
> It is surprising to me that so many reformed and other Portestants have doubt equal to the average Catholic. From a practical perspective it seem that both systems produce uncertainty. The American Puritans were certainly preoccupied with wondering about their individual salvation. Boy, reading their history and personal testimonies, there was allot of morbid introspection. Where is the joy of simple family life? It would be terrible for one of my children to sit around constantly wondering "am I _really_ a member of this family?
> 
> [Edited on 11-22-2004 by Scott]



The problem is not that Protestants do not have assurance. The problem is where we seek assurance. It is not in baptism, but in the fruit of the Spirit. I may have missed it, but where in WCF 18 does it mention baptism?

It does mention:



> inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made
> 
> testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God



The Word has primacy. Yes, the Word is ineffectual unless it is mixed with faith (cf. Hebrews 4), but the sacraments are ineffectual unless the Word is present.

The fact is that the Confession acknowledges that conversion and regeneration can happen apart from (or even without) baptism, but not without faith, which comes by the Word. Notice that faith comes by the Word.


----------



## fredtgreco

I'll let the folks on RefCat make my point for me about baptism:



> Paul,
> 
> The additional thing we must remember is that, if Wilson's view is correct, it logically follows that Roman Catholics are most certainly not apostate simply because the 'one holy catholic and apostolic church' has never declared them to be such.
> 
> Wilson, in my view, cannot have his cake and eat it too and I think this is some of what accounts for the frustration in Baptist circles in terms of understanding his position and where it finally lands.
> 
> His position should demand that we remain at the very least charitable towards Roman Catholics and not resolute in our calling for their repentance ('grabbing them by their baptism'). But as you note, if we are to believe his case concerning Hebrews we must put aside our Reformed prejudices concerning Rome and recognize Roman Catholics as enlightened, Spirit-filled, sprinkled clean baptized Christians.
> 
> Instead, it appears that Wilson is prepared to retain his anti-Catholicism in favor of a preferred status for the Reformed-truer-to-the-Gospel-Christian. I don't buy it and I think additional work needs to be done in better understanding the implications of an objective covenant theology without the prejudiced view of Rome and her members.



I guess the Reformation is a bad thing.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Fred,
Why did both James White and Doug Wilson say to look to your baptism? It is not the baptism but what it represents. The WCF says:

Chapter XXVIII.
Of Baptism.

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,(a) *not only* for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;(b) *but also*, to be unto him a sign and *seal* of the covenant of grace,(c) of his *ingrafting into Christ*,(d) of *regeneration*,(e) of *remission of sins*,(f) and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.(g) Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.(h)

This language is explicit. it points to that which baptism represents.



[Edited on 11-23-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> Why did both James White and Doug Wilson say to look to your baptism? It is not the baptism but what it represents. The WCF says:
> 
> Chapter XXVIII.
> Of Baptism.
> 
> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,(a) *not only* for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;(b) *but also*, to be unto him a sign and *seal* of the covenant of grace,(c) of his *ingrafting into Christ*,(d) of *regeneration*,(e) of *remission of sins*,(f) and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.(g) Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.(h)
> 
> This language is explicit. it points to that which baptism represents.



Scott,

The answer to your first question should be obvious: neither are Reformed Presbyterians. Wilson rejects the visible/invisible church distinction (which is at the center of the WCF's ecclesiology) and for White, one can obviously look to one's baptism because it is *always *tied to a profession of faith - remember, he is a credobaptist!

Now I want you to re-read your comment about looking to baptism for presumptive regeneration and ask yourself this question: are you really prepared to go as far you would have to with that logic using the confession?

Because if you are, then you must not only presume that one who is baptized is regenerate (point d above), but the one that is baptized must be presumed converted and saved. For we must presume that he is in the covenant of grace (point b, unless you want the covenant of grace to be breakable, and that leads to a host of other more serious problems), presume that he is one with Christ (point c), presume that all his sins ARE forgiven him (point e, and presume that he is showing fruit (point f). You can't have it both ways. You can't pick regeneration out of that list and say we can presume that because of baptism, but we don't have to presume forgiveness of sins or union with Christ (which is salvation).

What are you going to do?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> Why did both James White and Doug Wilson say to look to your baptism? It is not the baptism but what it represents. The WCF says:
> 
> Chapter XXVIII.
> Of Baptism.
> 
> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,(a) *not only* for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;(b) *but also*, to be unto him a sign and *seal* of the covenant of grace,(c) of his *ingrafting into Christ*,(d) of *regeneration*,(e) of *remission of sins*,(f) and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.(g) Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.(h)
> 
> This language is explicit. it points to that which baptism represents.





> Scott,
> 
> The answer to your first question should be obvious: neither are Reformed Presbyterians. Wilson rejects the visible/invisible church distinction (which is at the center of the WCF's ecclesiology) and for White, one can obviously look to one's baptism because it is *always *tied to a profession of faith - remember, he is a credobaptist!
> 
> Now I want you to re-read your comment about looking to baptism for presumptive regeneration and ask yourself this question: are you really prepared to go as far you would have to with that logic using the confession?
> 
> Because if you are, then you must not only presume that one who is baptized is regenerate (point d above), but the one that is baptized must be presumed converted and saved. For we must presume that he is in the covenant of grace (point b, unless you want the covenant of grace to be breakable, and that leads to a host of other more serious problems), presume that he is one with Christ (point c), presume that all his sins ARE forgiven him (point e, and presume that he is showing fruit (point f). You can't have it both ways. You can't pick regeneration out of that list and say we can presume that because of baptism, but we don't have to presume forgiveness of sins or union with Christ (which is salvation).
> 
> What are you going to do?



Fred,
Wilson does not reject the visible/invisible distinction. Where did you get that? In fact, I heard him just yesterday mention it, which White agreed with; So, I do not know where you come up with that?

Keep in mind, I am not saying that my children ARE regenerate, I am saying that I _presume_ they are; there is a difference.

Also, I believe that the C.O.G can be broken. 

I quote from a previous thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5990&page=3



> Fred,
> What are the differences/limitations between the CoG's "outward administration" and "external administrations"?
> 
> Do you still disagree with this statement?
> 
> The covenant of grace (a real covenant, instituted by God, sealed in blood), which co-exists alongside the covenant of redemption, has the elect and non elect in it. So, you see, the fish, the wedding participants, the branches which are cut off, they are all in the covenant and are receiving covenant blessings, blessings that the Egyptians (heathens) do not receive. This rendering reconsiles all the mentionings of 'good and bad' people, fish, branches.



And Matt:



> Fred,
> 
> Scott is right in asking this question above.
> 
> Are you talking about the CoG in terms of Predestination, or the Cog in terms of the visible external covenant community in that SAME covenant?
> 
> Remember, Westminster followed Turretin, and Ursinus gives the same information as Turretin does. They divided the CoG into two sections:
> 
> 1) The Cog as it related to Christ's service (i.e. presdestination based on the work of Christ - i.e. Chapter 3 in the WCF) and...
> 
> 2) The CoG as it appears in time with men (i.e. WCF chapter 7.) The covenant community of "believers" rounding up both beleivers, and thier children, and the covenant beleiver, or Gospel Hypocrite.
> 
> The Reformation, during that time, made this distiction across the board. Today it is not "distinguished" in this way and results in confusion.
> 
> the Sum of Saving Knowledge (of the Westminster Standards) bears this out quite nicely in applying practically the WCF. it explains both the CoR there AND the CoG and how they work together. In other words, they followed Turretin's outline and distinction for the WCF (which is why there is a chapter 3 and a seperate chapter7), and then followed the same teachings of Cocceius (who taught Witsius, who would publish his works later).




Those people in the visible church that have been baptised _are_ included in the C.O.G. The bible warns of apostasy, supporting my idea that the C.O.G can be broken.The C.O.R cannot be broken however.

A man cannot be converted unless the hearing of the word. I don't believe John the Baptist was _converted_ in the womb; he may have been regenerate though. 


I suggest you review this thread again on Matt 13 as it supports my position clearly.



[Edited on 11-23-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## JWJ

Pardon me for jumping in, but I do have a question. Maybe I am misunderstanding some of you when you say that one needs to look at their fruit for assurance, use the practical syllogism, or teach our children to look at their fruit for evidence. It seems as though you are implying this is the most important factor. What about the "œfruit" of faith i.e., believe in the righteousness of Christ alone. Should not the first and foremost element we teach our children and one we need to do ourselves daily, is look to Christ alone? To depend on His righteousness?

Now I do agree that the fruit of the Spirit is an element in assurance. However I do not agree that it is where one should begin or where one should always dwell on. This is what differentiated the early reformers from the puritans. The reformers stressed the righteousness of Christ while the puritans stressed "œintrospection" of one´s fruit. 


Moreover, in today´s church age of darkness, the use of the practical syllogism can be detrimental in counseling professing Christians and even young covenant children. The reasons are obvious. As in the case of professing Christians, many lack the understanding and teaching of key doctrines such as justification. As with young covenant children, though they have been taught these doctrines since infancy, they still lack application in living these doctrines. 

Jim


----------



## Scott

Fred: Do you disagree that a purpose of a "seal" is to attest to the authenticity of its object? If it does not do that, what does it do? 

Anyway, the issue is addressed in Larger Catechism 167:



> The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; . . . by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament . . .



Note that assurance of salvation is one of the blessings sealed in the sacrament in baptism. Further, to improve our baptisim involve gaining assurance of pardon of sins. 

I think this is consistent with outher teachers of Reformed theology, such as Calvin. He writes:



> 14. Sign and thing
> 
> Now that the end to which the Lord had regard in the institution of baptism has been explained, it is easy to judge in what way we ought to use and receive it. For inasmuch as it is appointed to elevate, nourish, and confirm our faith, we are to receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded that it is himself who speaks to us by means of the sign; that it is himself who washes and purifies us, and effaces the remembrance of our faults; that it is himself who makes us the partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed with him we may be accounted the children of God. These things I say, we ought to feel as truly and certainly in our mind as we see our body washed, immersed, and surrounded with water. For this analogy or similitude furnishes the surest rule in the sacraments, viz., that in corporeal things we are to see spiritual, just as if they were actually exhibited to our eye, since the Lord has been pleased to represent them by such figures; not that such graces are included and bound in the sacrament, so as to be conferred by its efficacy, but only that by this badge the Lord declares to us that he is pleased to bestow all these things upon us. Nor does he merely feed our eyes with bare show; he leads us to the actual object, and effectually performs what he figures.
> 
> 15. Baptism as confirming faith
> 
> We have a proof of this in Cornelius, the centurion, who, after he had been previously endued with the graces of the Holy Spirit, was baptised for the remission of sins, not seeking a fuller forgiveness from baptism, but a surer exercise of faith; nay, an argument for assurance from a pledge. It will, perhaps, be objected, Why did Ananias say to Paul that he washed away his sins by baptism, (Acts 22:16; cf. ch 9:17-18) if sins are not washed away by the power of baptism? I answer, we are said to receive, procure, and obtain, whatever according to the perception of our faith is exhibited to us by the Lord, whether he then attests it for the first time, or gives additional confirmation to what he had previously attested. All then that Ananias meant to say was, Be baptised, Paul, that you may be assured that your sins are forgiven you. In baptism, the Lord promises forgiveness of sins: receive it, and be secure.
> 
> I have no intention however, to detract from the power of baptism. I would only add to the sign the substance and reality, inasmuch as God works by external means. But from this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith. If faith is wanting, it will be an evidence of our ingratitude by which we are proved guilty before God, for not believing the promise there given.
> 
> In so far as it is a sign of our confession, we ought thereby to testify that we confide in the mercy of God, and are pure, through the forgiveness of sins which Christ Jesus has procured for us; that we have entered into the Church of God, that with one consent of faith and love we may live in concord with all believers. This last was Paul's meaning, when he said that "by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body," (1 Cor. 12: 13.)



[Edited on 11-23-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Scott

BTW, I don't want the discussion to appear that the disagreement is larger than it really is (with respect to me at least). Baptism alone is not sufficient. However, it should count for osmething and provide the assurance promised, else it is worthless. In our modern Protestant world, baptism counts for so little in so many circles. There are lengthy debates over whether to baptize infants or not, but in the end in many circles the consequences are non-existent. The way baptism is treated in many Portestant circles (reformed or otherwise), it does not really "seal" anything, at least in the conventional use of the word seal. At best, it is a sort of secret handshake for a club (you know the secret handshake - ok you are part of the club; you have been baptized - ok you can be part of the congregation). 

It is not treated like Calvin taught, that it is the voice of God authenticating our Christian life. 

That said, of course I believe that unbaptized people can be unsaved hypocrites. I just think baptism was designed to avoid the morbid introspection that so often accompanies Puritanism, revivalism, and evangelical theology. Problems with assurance were widespread in American Puritanism to an extent that was truly morbid.


----------



## Scott

Here is a common dictionary definition of the term "to seal:"




> 1. To affix a seal to in order to prove authenticity or attest to accuracy, legal weight, quality, or another standard. 2a. To close with or as if with a seal. b. To close hermetically. c. To make fast or fill up, as with plaster or cement. d. To apply a waterproof coating to: seal a blacktop driveway. 3. To grant, certify, or designate under seal or authority. 4. To establish or determine irrevocably: Our fate was sealed. 5. Mormon Church To make (a marriage, for example) binding for life; solemnize forever.


----------



## fredtgreco

I am not avoiding the issue, but have absolutely no time to work/think on this now. I have two papers to finish today, a sermon on Sunday and 4 books to read Thursday/Friday, in addition to maybe getting a dog. I doubt I will be able to respond at all before next week.


----------



## Scott Bushey

What kind of Dog?


----------



## Irishcat922

We bought a Chocalate lab this past weekend, I highly recommend any Lab.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> BTW, I don't want the discussion to appear that the disagreement is larger than it really is (with respect to me at least). Baptism alone is not sufficient. However, it should count for osmething and provide the assurance promised, else it is worthless. In our modern Protestant world, baptism counts for so little in so many circles. There are lengthy debates over whether to baptize infants or not, but in the end in many circles the consequences are non-existent. The way baptism is treated in many Portestant circles (reformed or otherwise), it does not really "seal" anything, at least in the conventional use of the word seal. At best, it is a sort of secret handshake for a club (you know the secret handshake - ok you are part of the club; you have been baptized - ok you can be part of the congregation).
> 
> It is not treated like Calvin taught, that it is the voice of God authenticating our Christian life.
> 
> That said, of course I believe that unbaptized people can be unsaved hypocrites. I just think baptism was designed to avoid the morbid introspection that so often accompanies Puritanism, revivalism, and evangelical theology. Problems with assurance were widespread in American Puritanism to an extent that was truly morbid.



Scott,

I am not quite following you. Baptism is a sign and a seal. But the seal "seals" what is signified. And what Baptism signifies is only sealed via the Holy Spirit on the person whom it is meant for. What would be the difference between "look to your Baptism for your assurance of salvation" and "look to your circumcision for your assurance of salvation". The Jews looked to their circumcision as proof that they were of the seed of Abraham, the promise was to them, so they presumed upon their circumcision that they were saved. But we know that *faith* makes one a seed of Abraham not the sign of the Covenant.

I have been hearing a lot about "morbid introspection", especially in regards to "examining oneself" in taking the Lord's Supper. If someone is approaching the Supper as well as life itself through "morbid introspection" then they need to re-read Scripture and the Standards. Nowhere is morbid introspection required or even expected.


----------



## Scott

Wayne:

There are several sources of assurance and baptism should be one. As the larger catechism says, assurance of pardon of sins is one of the blessings of baptism. Calvin rightly says this too. Baptism is a seal. By its very function, a purpose of a "seal" is to attest to something as authentic. It basically attests to nothing in much of the modern practice.

I agree that we should examine ourselves regularly, especially before communion. That does not mean that we should constantly doubt our salvation. We can examine ourselves within the context of salvation. Regarding morbid introspection, I am thinking of my readings in American puritanism. Their struggles with assurance were titanic. Some basically required a super-evangelical crisis conversion experience and, without that, they assumed they were not save. This is plain wrong. 

Scott

[Edited on 11-23-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Scott

> I am not avoiding the issue, but have absolutely no time to work/think on this now. I have two papers to finish today, a sermon on Sunday and 4 books to read Thursday/Friday, in addition to maybe getting a dog. I doubt I will be able to respond at all before next week.



I am sorry, Fred, but that is not the way this works. You must respond immediately or your silence constitutes ratification of everything else said on the board by those who disagree with you. Your silence also constitutes a waiver of all rights, legal and equitable, now and in the future. Leviticus expressly teaches the doctrine of ratification.

So, glad the see you have come around (as your silence exhibits)! :bigsmile:

BTW, get a Boston Terrier.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> I am not avoiding the issue, but have absolutely no time to work/think on this now. I have two papers to finish today, a sermon on Sunday and 4 books to read Thursday/Friday, in addition to maybe getting a dog. I doubt I will be able to respond at all before next week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, Fred, but that is not the way this works. You must respond immediately or your silence constitutes ratification of everything else said on the board by those who disagree with you. Your silence also constitutes a waiver of all rights, legal and equitable, now and in the future. Leviticus expressly teaches the doctrine of ratification.
> 
> So, glad the see you have come around (as your silence exhibits)! :bigsmile:
> 
> BTW, get a Boston Terrier.
Click to expand...




Scott,

That would be the case, were it not for the small print in the book of 2 Chronicles that states:



> No failure or delay on the part of any party in the exercise of any right hereunder will impair such right or be construed to be a waiver of, or acquiescence in, any breach of any provision of this, nor will any single or partial exercise of any such right preclude other or further exercise of any other right. All rights and remedies existing under this are cumulative to, and not exclusive of, any rights or remedies otherwise available.



By the way, for the record anyway, I disagreed with Scott B's and Matt's assessment of the CoG in the Matthew 13 thread as well. The Standards declare in at least one place (more likely two) that the CoG is made with Christ, and in the other instance appears to contemplate being made with the elect with Christ as Mediator. How the CoG can be broken then is beyond me, and almost all Reformed divines.

Secondly, Scott B's comment here


> Keep in mind, I am not saying that my children ARE regenerate, I am saying that I presume they are; there is a difference.


is to no effect, since I never argued that we must presume justification and forgiveness because we have presumed regeneration. What I argued was:


Scott said we are to presume regeneration in our children
Scott said that presumption is based on baptism
Scott said we presume based on what baptism symbolizes and seal
However, baptism ALSO symbolizes and seals forgiveness and union with Christ (conversion and justification)
Baptism ALSO symbolizes and seals our sanctification ("walking in newness of life")
Therefore, according to Scott's logic, we have NO CHOICE but to presume union with Christ, forgiveness, conversion and sanctification in our children as well
[/list=1]

Also, no one has yet (to my knowledge) answered the question raised by Calvin's WIDELY divergent practice - not pointing potential communicants to their baptism, but rather culling out evidence of conversion - and the claims made about his theology.

The dog is a 6 week old Lab/Golden Retriever mix. :bigsmile:

Out until later... or I will get sucked in {Darth Vader breathing noise}


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> Also, no one has yet (to my knowledge) answered the question raised by Calvin's WIDELY divergent practice - not pointing potential communicants to their baptism, but rather culling out evidence of conversion - and the claims made about his theology.



Why would this be an issue. One looks back to be reminded about their baptism (promises), but should look to thier assuracne (ahhh those puritans) _for_ assurance. I'm not seeing the problem here.

[Luke in exasperated voice with hand cut off] 
I'll never join you! 

[Edited on 11-23-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Fred,
Going back to the Matt 13 thread, You never got back to Matt on what he cited.

[Edited on 11-23-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> To the above responses to me on my response to Meg;
> Unless I misunderstood Meg, I believe she was referring to the communicants class or an outward confession. When something like 'the close' or 'closing with Christ' is mentioned, it sounds Arminian. It smacks of these ridiculous events that the Arminian requires and even the present day PCA seek.
> 
> Megs statement had to do with PE and the "closing". The closing is something that the Arminian does, i.e. the altar call, the confession, the prayer. These things the Arminian needs. He does not trust God. He is like Thomas; he must put his fingers in the hole before he will believe.



The terminology of "closing with Christ" is standard language employed by the Puritans and the Scottish Covenanters as the equivalent of "coming to Christ." This language was used by Puritains like John Owen, _Work_, Vol. 9, pp. 362ff.; John Flavel, _Works_, Vol. 2, pp. 362f.; William Gurnal; Samuel Rutherford; William Guthrie's _The Christian's Great Interest_; James Durham in his _An Exposition of the Song of Solomon_ and _ The Way of Covenanting with God, and of a Sinner's obtaining Justification before Him_; John Welsh of Irongray in his sermons, Jonathan Edwards in his sermons, e.g. sermon 12 on "Charity and Its Fruits"; Robert Murray M'Cheyne in his sermons; Andrew Bonar in his sermons, etc. 

None of these men were Arminians. I suspect that Meg has simply expressed her acquaintance with standard Puritan theology.

As J. I. Packer put it, this was standard language employed by the older Reformed writers:


> The necessary means, or instrumental cause, of justification is personal faith in Jesus Christ as crucified Savior and risen Lord (Rom. 4:23-25; 10:8-13). This is because the meritorious ground of our justification is entirely in Christ. As we give ourselves in faith to Jesus, Jesus gives us his gift of righteousness, so that in the very act of "œclosing with Christ," as older Reformed teachers put it, we receive divine pardon and acceptance which we could not otherwise have (Gal. 2:15-16; 3:24). See his _Concise Theology_.



I guess I didn't know that this "elementary" and standard language of the Puritans and those after them had fallen on hard times on the Puritan Board.

Blessings,
DTK

PS. My apologies, I see now that Mr. Greco has already addressed this.


[Edited on 24-11-2004 by DTK]

[Edited on 24-11-2004 by DTK]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Out until later... or I will get sucked in {Darth Vader breathing noise}



Cool stuff!


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Out until later... or I will get sucked in {Darth Vader breathing noise}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool stuff!
Click to expand...


Yet another reason to use Firefox. There is an extension that allows you to insert smilies that are not included on the board!

https://update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=375&vid=1191


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Out until later... or I will get sucked in {Darth Vader breathing noise}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool stuff!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another reason to use Firefox. There is an extension that allows you to insert smilies that are not included on the board!
> 
> https://update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=375&vid=1191
Click to expand...


Freddy-1-Kenobi you're our only hope...Freddy-1-Kenobi, you're our only hope.






[Edited on 24-11-2004 by crhoades]


----------



## Scott

> The terminology of "closing with Christ" is standard language employed by the Puritans and the Scottish Covenanters as the equivalent of "coming to Christ."



I think that everyone agrees that personal faith in Christ is necessary. The main issue is whether a child can acquire the faith imperceptibly (and indeed is disciplied as a member of the covenant, as opposed to evangelized to like a pagan) or if instead the child must have a crisis conversion, as revivalists contend. Does "closing with Christ" involve a crisis conversion?

[Edited on 11-29-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> The terminology of "closing with Christ" is standard language employed by the Puritans and the Scottish Covenanters as the equivalent of "coming to Christ."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that everyone agrees that personal faith in Christ is necessary. The main issue is whether a child can acquire the faith imperceptibly (and indeed is disciplied as a member of the covenant, as opposed to evangelized to like a pagan) or if instead the child must have a crisis conversion, as revivalists contend. Does "closing with Christ" involve a crisis conversion?
> 
> [Edited on 11-29-2004 by Scott]
Click to expand...


My contention exactly. I believe that the interpretation, even in the reformed circle is skewed.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> The terminology of "closing with Christ" is standard language employed by the Puritans and the Scottish Covenanters as the equivalent of "coming to Christ."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that everyone agrees that personal faith in Christ is necessary. The main issue is whether a child can acquire the faith imperceptibly (and indeed is disciplied as a member of the covenant, as opposed to evangelized to like a pagan) or if instead the child must have a crisis conversion, as revivalists contend. Does "closing with Christ" involve a crisis conversion?
> 
> [Edited on 11-29-2004 by Scott]
Click to expand...


Actually Scott,

I don't think anyone - except extreme RefCats - is really concerned with the need for a *crisis* conversion. I know I am not; and I don't think I have ever argued that point. The problem that I have (and you may not disagree at all) is that by setting up this crisis/revivalistic straw man, many today in our circles set up baptism as the end all be all, and do not look for fruit.


----------



## Scott

Fred: For what it's worth, I definitely think that we need to look at the fruits. A baptized person can be an unsaved hypocrite. Baptism is a beginning and not an end. I think there can and should be several sources of assurance, and baptism should be one (indeed, that is a function of a "seal" - to attest to the authenticity of something).

From what I have read of the American puritans, it was common for them to require crisis conversions from their children. Impercetible acquisition of the faith was not an option.


----------



## turmeric

What's a crisis - point-in-time conversion or huge emotional experience? Point-in-time conversions do happen, but in young children it may not be a huge emotional deal and they may never remember when it happened. In an adult it will probably be somewhat of a crisis in the emotional sense and he/she will probably remember it until Alzheimer's sets in. (Those people, BTW, still remember that they love Jesus, usually). I was raised in the church, with salvation & "charismatic experience", but wasn't a Christian. My conversion was definitely a crisis, in all respects, but I swear it wasn't Charles Finney's fault!


----------



## Scott

From my reading of American Puritans it is at least an intensely emotional experience that involves extreme and sharp pangs of guilt for having been an unbeliever until that point. It involves deep remorse, crying, and the like. 

BTW, I had a crisis conversion myself, as I had never been baptized, never had any Christian instruction, was never apart of a church or even nominally Christian until my early twenties when I had a crisis conversion that would count in any evangelical theological worldview. However, I don't expect this of covenant children, as they are members of the covenant and are being discipled as such.


----------



## Scott

> I don't think anyone - except extreme RefCats - is really concerned with the need for a *crisis* conversion. I know I am not; and I don't think I have ever argued that point. The problem that I have (and you may not disagree at all) is that by setting up this crisis/revivalistic straw man, many today in our circles set up baptism as the end all be all, and do not look for fruit.



The need for a crisis conversion is common in evangelical circles and is even present to a degree in reformed circles. Some reformed people want a candidate for communion to be able to give a date of conversion, for example. 

D.G. Hart writes of the problems with crisis conversion in his Recovering Mother Kirk. He is definitely not a RefCat and is very old-line reformed (psalms only, no church calendar, etc.). It is a common problem (not on this board, perhaps). Perhaps my experience in the South attunes me to it more, as we have so man Southern Baptists and bible churches, both of which hold the crisis conversion paradigm. People who grow up loving God in Christian homes are treated skeptically unless they had their crisis.


----------



## turmeric

*What do you think of THIS crisis?*

Of course it occurred in a Dispensational church. The subject was 7yrs old.

I noticed one Sunday morning that our adult Sunday-school teacher wasn't in the morning service though I knew he was there in the building. He has small children so I assumed that was the reason. I was right.

He said his 7yr old son told him after Sunday school that he wanted to be a Christian, because he wanted to tell people about God. He said he had wanted to become one the night before but didn't want to wake his parents. His father asked him some questions to see if the boy understood what Jesus did for us on the Cross, and he seemed to understand well - for a 7yr old, so his dad prayed with him.

Okay, I understand that the "sinners' prayer" doesn't save anyone, and that the little boy didn't have to wait to pray with someone, but it does seem like a point-in-time event which probably would look different in a Reformed community.
Whaddaya think?


----------



## Scott

Meg:

Frankly, I think this would be consistent with the practices of many Reformed communities. The last PCA church I was in had a practice of having children give up and give conversion testimonies, often pinpointing specific days of conversion.

Children are often taught from the beginning that they need to convert, as if they are little pagans - in spite of their baptism and church membership. If that is the model that children are taught, that is how they will respond. In those situations, infant baptism is essentially meaningless and the child is not treated materially differently than he would be in a non-covenantal church.

Scott


----------



## AdamM

> Children are often taught from the beginning that they need to convert, as if they are little pagans - in spite of their baptism and church membership.



So baptism and church membership means our covenant children have no need to be converted (close with Christ by personal faith)?

[Edited on 30-11-2004 by AdamM]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> Children are often taught from the beginning that they need to convert, as if they are little pagans - in spite of their baptism and church membership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So baptism and church membership means our covenant children have no need to be converted (close with Christ by personal faith)?
> 
> [Edited on 30-11-2004 by AdamM]
Click to expand...


Good point Adam. This issue was the thrust of this whole thread.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Adam,
Here is what the WCF says:

Of Baptism


I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.

How shall we look at our children in light of this? As the credo?

Lets also define, along some biblical examples, of what the closing truly is. Closing may be expressed as fruit?

[Edited on 11-30-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> Children are often taught from the beginning that they need to convert, as if they are little pagans - in spite of their baptism and church membership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So baptism and church membership means our covenant children have no need to be converted (close with Christ by personal faith)?
> 
> [Edited on 30-11-2004 by AdamM]
Click to expand...


Adam,
I believe you have redefined conversion. There is none other than God whom converts men. And as expressed in Titus 3:5, nothing that we do. Conversion is a result of hearing only Rom 10:17


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> Children are often taught from the beginning that they need to convert, as if they are little pagans - in spite of their baptism and church membership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So baptism and church membership means our covenant children have no need to be converted (close with Christ by personal faith)?
> 
> [Edited on 30-11-2004 by AdamM]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam,
> I believe you have redefined conversion. There is none other than God whom converts men. And as expressed in Titus 3:5, nothing that we do. Conversion is a result of hearing only Rom 10:17
Click to expand...


Adam has not redefined conversion. Conversion is an act of God that takes place in men. It is the work of God, but it must be seen in the justified sinner



> Faith, thus *receiving and resting on Christ* and His righteousness, is the alone *instrument *of justification: (John 1:12, Rom. 3:28, Rom. 5:1) yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love. (James 2:17,22,26, Gal. 5:6) (WCF 11.2)
> 
> The grace of faith, whereby the elect are *enabled to believe to the saving of their souls*, (Heb. 10:39) is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, (2 Cor. 4:13, Eph. 1:17"“19, Eph. 2:8) and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, (Rom. 10:14,17) by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened
> (WCF 14.1.)



With conversion being effected (ordinarily and instrumentally) by the preaching of the Word:



> WCF 159: How is the Word of God to Be Preached by Those that are Called Thereunto?
> 
> Answer:
> They that are called to labour in the ministry of the word, are to preach sound doctrine, diligently, in season and out of season; plainly, not in the enticing words of man´s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power; faithfully, making known the whole counsel of God; wisely, applying themselves to the necessities and capacities of the hearers; zealously, with fervent love to God and the souls of his people; sincerely, aiming at his glory, and their conversion, edification, and salvation.



Thus the Confession can speak of repentance as a "saving grace" (WCF 15)

And justifying faith as a saving grace (WLC 72):



> Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> So baptism and church membership means our covenant children have no need to be converted (close with Christ by personal faith)?



Maybe or maybe not. But again, who are we to question what God says? We remain optomistic. "I WILL be a God to you and your children after you." Is God a liar?

Unless otherwise instructed (i.e. we see thier non-conversion in God's providence) we would rest on the promises that God is a God to them already. If we find they are not converted, again, at the age of discretion, we would continue to 1) remind them of their covenant status and refresh them again (as usual) as to their obligations, and 2) we would continue to teach them everything about Christ.

In presuming we remain optomistic that God will make good on what He says about Covneant Children. If He is a God to them, we believe Him. This topic overall encompasses both how parents react to the reality of the word, and the status of the child.

This ALL hinges on how one interprets the Scriptures based either on the compouind sense or divided sense. It is a matter of hermeneutics.


----------



## Scott

Adam: Think of it this way. To be saved every person musy be able to affirmatively answer the question "Do you have faith in Christ?" A negative answer indicates no salvation. 

There is another question that some require. "On what date did you convert?" Knowing a date of conversion is not required.

On a broader level, we do not seek to convert our children like they were rank pagans. We instruct them in the faith as heirs of the covenant. They must adopt this teaching as their own or their status as covenant heirs will not help them. For example, we teach them to pray in the name of Jesus. We don't do this for pagans. If we do not presume that the children are real deal believers, teaching them to pray in Jesus' name is teaching them falsely, as they are not properly able to do this.

Fred: I know you are a revivalist at heart - I just don't know why you won't admit it! 

Scott


----------



## Scott

BTW, a popular child rearing program I think illustrates an important distinction in a covenant view vs a revivalist view. This program (the Ezzo Growing Kids God's Way program) expressly teaches that parents are NOT to teach children to pray to Jesus until they have their conversion experience. Of course the Ezzos are credobaptists, which is the logical position for their position (as it would be for those who hold Fred's views  ). Anyway, they warn parents against having their children pray to Jesus or in His name, as He is not their savior yet. Children are to pray to the Father alone. 

This is error. We may properly teach children to pray to Jesus, as they are heirs of the covenant and truly and really members of the Church by virtue of their baptism. They are different than pagan children, and not only in that they have better access to teaching. 

Scott

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Scott

For what it's worth and not to exagerate the differences we have, as part of our discipleship, we expressly teach children of the necessity of personal faith in Jesus and that without this there is no hope. It is presented as instruction and discipleship (as a holy seed this what you must believe), not as evangelization (hey you unholy seed, have you heard the good news).


----------



## AdamM

> Adam,
> I believe you have redefined conversion. There is none other than God whom converts men. And as expressed in Titus 3:5, nothing that we do. Conversion is a result of hearing only Rom 10:17



Scott, I am using conversion in the biblical sense as expressed so well by Rev. King earlier in this thread. Pastor King is as solidly orthodox as you can get and what he writes about the Puritans and their views is what they taught. It is just standard A-B-C Westminster Theology. 

In regards to the sacraments, the mistake I see getting made by some in our circles is confusing the sign with the thing signified by the sign. It is a concern in our denominations, because our standards and the scriptures clearly reject both an ex opere operato and an opus operatum view, yet I seldom read any mention of the faith of the recipient by those who complain about a "œlow" view of the sacraments. Faith is the hinge upon which the Westminster Standards teaching on the efficacy of the sacraments swings, but you would never know it reading some of the reformed sacramentalists today. Faith simply never makes it into their teaching, yet the standards are crystal clear that baptism has no efficacy apart from the reception of it in FAITH (before, during or after the moment of baptism.) That faith is conferred (or not conferred) sovereignty by the Holy Spirit, in God´s appointed time.

For what it's worth, here are some notes I made from a lecture given by Sinclair Ferguson earlier this year at the Westminster Confession into the 21st Century Conference held at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh on The Westminster Doctrine of Baptism and Current Reformed Trajectories that I think will be helpful to the discussion: 




> In the Westminster Standards the language of conferral needs to be understood in the context of FAITH. WCF 28-6 "œthe grace promised not only offered. But really exhibited, and conferred by the Holy Ghost, * to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God´s own will, in His appointed time.*
> 
> WCF 28-6
> -Efficacy is not ties to the moment of time in which baptism is administered.
> -Emphasis is on the conferral by the Holy Spirit of that which is signified, sealed and exhibited. Not tied to the moment of baptism.
> -Efficacy takes place in God´s appointed time and in God´s appointed way.
> 
> The Westminster Standards take account of the following:
> - Regeneration may take place at baptism.
> -Regeneration may tale place before baptism.
> -Regeneration may take place after baptism.
> -Regeneration may never take place.
> 
> Baptism is related to regeneration as sign and seal are related to the efficacious reality of the regenerating power of God, but the chronological / temporal way in which it is related is matter of gracious divine sovereignty.
> 
> 
> General consensus of the Westminster Standards about baptism:
> 
> The conviction that regeneration has taken place or will take place in baptism does not provide us with the appropriate biblical grounds for baptism. Instead baptism is administered in terms of the administration of the covenant and the promise enshrined in the covenant. This is made clear in WLC 166 "œ but infants descending from parents either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, * are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.* & WSC 95 "œbut the infants of such as are member of the * visible church * are to baptized."
> 1.The sacraments put a visible difference between those that belong to the church and to the world. (WCF 27-1)
> 2.The visible church consists of all those that profess true religion and their children. (WCF 25-2)
> 3.Children of believers belong to the visible church. (WSC 25)
> 4.Children of believers are within the covenant. (WLC 166)
> 5.Children of believers have an interest in the covenant and are federally holy. (WDPW)
> 
> In conclusion:
> 
> 1.The Westminster Standards have a very high view of baptism.
> 2.The Westminster Standards teach a covenant consciousness approach rather then presumed regeneration.
> 3.The warrant for baptism is not our knowledge or presumed knowledge of an individuals regeneration, but the relation of the individual to the administration of the covenant.
> 
> The great danger is that the presumed regeneration position implies that the unlike the children of the Turks and Indians that covenant children have no need to flee to Christ in repentance and faith. However, the whole message of the covenant is flee to Christ in repentance and faith.


----------



## AdamM

Scott, I would be dead set against requiring a date or some type of crisis conversion experience. I think it is great to hear the testimony of folks who can´t remember a day when they don´t remember believing the gospel, but the Lord has a unique spiritual journey for everyone, so I am dead set against creating a template (on either pole) that we try to impose upon people. Of course the revivalists want to see buckets of tears, but on the other pole there are those that would claim the only valid conversion experience is no conversion experience. Both miss the mark in my opinion. 

The Lord has given our covenant children their parents and the elders of the church to be attentive to their spiritual condition. I think if we as parents (and elders) make a point to treat each child as an individual, pray for insight and open our eyes and ears, the Lord will bless our efforts. Some kids the Lord will bring to a knowledge of the faith and an ability to manifest that knowledge at an early age and to those children as a parent (and elder,) I approach in a different way then I would the child who I just don´t see any sings of an awakened heart. 

For what it's worth, to the child who hasn´t shown signs of being spiritually awakened the last thing in the world I would want to do is focus our attention on sanctification issues (external conformity to the law) because that will obscure the gospel with moralism. I think that is one of the big problems when people jettison the idea of conversion for our kids is that moralism is right there to fill the vacuum. If we presume all of children are converted and start them on steady diet of teaching on sanctifcation "“ where does that leave the child who has not been awakened yet? I fear that child gets the idea that the Christian faith equals external righteousness, do this "“ do that, instead of believe on the Lord. This is where the discernment of parents and elders that I mentioned earlier comes into play. 

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by AdamM]


----------



## Scott

Adam: I think you are mistaken. Neglecting a covenant child's moral instruction (on the ground that they don't appear converted or for any other reason) is serious error. I think this really highlights the dangers of a revivalistic or evangelical view. It is certainly not in line with the PCA's written standards (which may differ from actual practice, given the heavy influence of evangelicalism).

Consider this from the PCA Book of Church Order. This is the instruction to the minister to charge the parents of a child during a baptism ceremony. 




> He [the minister] is to exhort the parent to consider the great mercy of God to him and his child; to bring up the child in the knowledge of the grounds of the Christian religion, and in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and to let him know the danger of God´s wrath to himself and child, if he be negligent; requiring his solemn promise for the performance of his duty.
> 
> The minister is also to exhort the parents to the careful performance of their duty, requiring:
> 
> a. That they teach the child to read the Word of God;
> 
> b. that they instruct him in the principles of our holy religion, as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, an excellent summary of which we have in the Confession of Faith, and in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, which are to be recommended to them as adopted by the Church, for their direction and assistance, in the discharge of this important duty;
> . . .



Note that the parent is to teach the child the true religion, which is summarized in the Confessional Standards. The confessional standards teach the whole Christian religion, including morality. Indeed, the largest portion of the catechisms address morality. 

The parent is required to vow that he will do this. The minister is to warn the parent of the danger of God's wrath toward him and his child if the parent neglects his duties.

Scott


----------



## AdamM

> Adam: I think you are mistaken. Neglecting a covenant child's moral instruction (on the ground that they don't appear converted or for any other reason) is serious error. I think this really highlights the dangers of a revivalistic or evangelical view. It is certainly not in line with the PCA's written standards (which may differ from actual practice, given the heavy influence of evangelicalism).



The question boils down the different uses of the law. Of course as a part of raising kids we teach them to obey the law, but I think for an unconverted person the first use of the law ought to be primary while not neglecting the other uses. It appears to me that you rule out the first use of the law for our children (since all are assumed already converted,) which is exactly the danger I see in the pr position. Actually I think the relevant parallel in this case is to the mainline churches that abandoned the doctrine of conversion, presumed everybody regenerate and therefore made moral-ism the primary focus of the nurture of children. It's those do's and don't's that are disconnected from the gospel call of repentance and personal faith that when they become the primary focus of "Christian" nurture succeed in bringing up good little Mormons.

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by AdamM]


----------



## Scott

Adam: I think it is important to remember that the fundamental covenant obligation that we teach the children is personal faith in Christ.


----------



## Scott

Adam: Do you believe covenant children are holy?


----------



## AdamM

> Adam: I think it is important to remember that the fundamental covenant obligation that we teach the children is personal faith in Christ.


Scott, that is precisely the point we have been trying to make. Our first obligation is for us to seek for the salvation of our children, to encourage them to close with Christ by personal faith. That closing need not be some dramatic crisis conversion, but we ought to encourage them to look to the Lord Jesus Christ in repentance and personal faith. 



> Adam: Do you believe covenant children are holy?



Federally Holy (Westminster Directory of Public Worship "“ "œThat they are Christians, and * federally holy * before baptism, and therefore are they baptized:" - Set apart from the world, members of the visible church, under the administration of the Covenant of Grace and therefore receive the sign of the COG, baptism.

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by AdamM]


----------



## Scott

Adam: We don't teach the necessity of faith in an evagelistic sense (you are in darkness but need the light) but in a discipleship sense (as a member of the covenant, your primary responsibility is to have faith). We also don't tell them they donb't have it or act toward them like they don't have it. 

If the children are holy then they are presumed to be with Christ. As Jesus said, people are either for him or against him. The revivalistic views that have dominated American presbyterianism for a long time create a third category. The use of infant baptism by those with revivalistic views (those who view their children as essentially pagans with a baptism that does not really seal (authenticate) their status before God) really have a third category. I think baptist criticisms of this use of baptism make allot of sense.

Scott


----------



## AdamM

> If the children are holy then they are presumed to be with Christ.



I think you are confusing the difference between federally holy and individually holy. Federally holy as our standards affirm makes no claim at all to presumption or knowledge that the individual is regenerated, but federally holy instead refers to being set apart, a member of the visible church (covenant community,) in the historical administration of the covenant of grace. Our standards clearly state in WCF 28-6 that that grace is conferred by the Holy Ghost, * to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God´s own will, in His appointed time. * There is no presumption in that statement that the Holy Spirit will confer grace upon all those who are baptized or even for arguments sake the majority of those who are baptized and are members of the visible church. The Holy Sprit confers grace to those * to whom it belongs to*, when He wants, according to the will of God (unconditional election.) 



> The revivalistic views that have dominated American presbyterianism for a long time create a third category. The use of infant baptism by those with revivalistic views (those who view their children as essentially pagans with a baptism that does not really seal (authenticate) their status before God) really have a third category.



I think the views on covenant and election that I explained are those of our standards and historic Presbyterianism. If Reformed churchmen of the past such as Thomas Watson, William Guthrie and today a TE today like Sinclair Ferguson get tagged as revivalists by the sacramentalists, then we know the charge is way off base. I and these men are saying nothing more then that our covenant children have a covenantal obligation to seek the Lord, to close with Christ in repentance and personal faith. Since in Adam ALL sinned and being a member of the covenant in terms of its historical administration is no assurance of election, then our children have the obligation to close with Christ by repentance and personal faith or they will go to hell. The only way presumed regeneration makes sense is if somehow being in the administration of the covenant guaranteed the election of all who are in it, but the scriptures and our own experiences show plenty of examples to the contrary. 

This in no way removes the great advantages our children have has members of the covenant. Their baptism itself functions as a powerful call to faith and God certainly delights to work through families. Our children are set apart in the covenant community, live in homes where the ordinary means God (faith comes by hearing) uses to bring people to faith should be saturating their lives. They have fathers, mothers and elders seeking for their salvation. How this can be called putting our children in the same position as pagans is a mystery to me? The alternative being proposed amounts to a confusing of the sign with the thing signified and an opus operatum view of baptism, where the sacrament is given efficacy apart from personal faith. 



> Thomas Watson:
> 
> "Get a real work of grace in your heart. 'It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace.´ Heb 13: 9. Nothing will hold out but grace; it is only this anointing abides; paint will fall off. Get a heartchanging work. 'But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified.' I Cor 6: 2: Be not content with baptism of water, without baptism of the Spirit. The reason men persevere not in religion, is for want of a vital principle; a branch must needs wither that has no root to grow upon."
> 
> William Guthrie:
> 
> "Believing on Christ must be personal; a man himself and in his own proper person must close with Christ Jesus-"˜The just shall live by his faith.´ (Hab. 2:4.) This says, that it will not suffice for a man´s safety and relief, that he is in covenant with God as a born member of the visible church, by virtue of the parent´s subjection to God´s ordinances: neither will it suffice that the person had the initiating seal of baptism added, and that he then virtually engaged to seek salvation by Christ´s blood, as all infants do: neither does it suffice that men are come of believing parents; their faith will not instate their children into a right to the spiritual blessings of the covenant; neither will it suffice that parents did, in some respects, engage for their children, and give them away unto God: all these things do not avail. The children of the kingdom and of godly predecessors are cast out. Unless a man in his own person have faith in Christ Jesus, and with his own heart approve and acquiesce in that device of saving sinners, he cannot be saved. I grant, this faith is given unto him by Christ; but certain it is, that it must be personal."



[Edited on 1-12-2004 by AdamM]


----------



## fredtgreco

Thank you Adam. An excellent post. I especially agree that the citation of Watson and Guthrie shows the foolishness (and anachronism) of the charge of "revivalism." After all, Watson and Guthrie wrote centuries BEFORE the First Great Awakening (let alone the second)


----------



## Scott

"How this can be called putting our children in the same position as pagans is a mystery to me?"

Adam: All you are really saying is that children of believers have more and better opportunities to be evangelized. Being a member of God's covenant involves much more than this.

Also, it does not surprise me that Ferguson and many others teach a revivalistic view. That view has dominated American reformed history. You might check out D.G. Hart's essay on this topic in his Recovering Mother Kirk. Hart is OPC and a Westminster Seminary Prof. 

The prevalence of this view also explains, I think, why reformed denominations are virtually indistiguishable from credo-baptist evangelical denominations regarding how we treat children. Your view and that of the typical baptist are identical in all material points and you both treat your children as pagans who need to be saved. My experience in the PCA is that, at least in my region, PCA members tend to have little or no problem moving between the PCA and non-reformed churches b/c the views are basically the same. I think it should strike us as odd that for all of the talk regarding the importance of covenant children, there are no material practical differences between a credo baptist and the majority paedo baptist view.


----------



## Scott

Fred: I admit that I am using the term "revivalist" loosely. I definitely agree that the fundamental views existed prior to the First Great Awakening. Early American Puritans (congregationalists) held to the view I am criticizing. It led to madness like the Half-Way Covenant. 

Also, when I use "revivalist" I am not referring to the manipulative techniques used by them, but to their views that covenant children should be viewed as children of hell until they make their decision. 

Adam and Fred: If, in spite of their baptism, you presume children to be unbelievers until some event, why don't you excommunicate them until that event happens?


----------



## AdamM

Thanks Fred,

I could have thrown out some more examples, but Guthrie and Watson are as mainstream as you get for that time period (For what it's worth, I borrowed these quotes from an great online paper done by Pastor Andy Webb.) I guess they are revivlists too? I just wish everyone here could listen to the lecture given by Dr. Sinclair Ferguson on Baptism and the Westminster Standards at the conference held before GA this year. In the lecture, Dr. Ferguson carefully goes through the standards teachings on baptism, explaining the background and the approach of the major players (Marshall, Lightfoot & etc.) I find his exegesis of the standards totally convincing and in agreement with my own previous readings of the Puritans of that era (on both sides of the Atlantic.)

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by AdamM]


----------



## Scott

On a happy note  , we should be able to confirm that we do agree on something important, namely that there is no need for a "crisis" - faith can come imperceptibly. I think this helps avoid a major revivalistic problem that led to strange issues, such as the Half-Way Covenant. It would not surprise me if some modern reformed got caught in that same trap, as their views can be so similar. Here is a interesting excerpt from an essay on the Half-Way Covenant that describes what is essentially a revivalistic experience:




> Puritans had made the arduous journey to the New World in order to establish a pure community of like-minded Christians, a "City on a Hill." Although all members of a Puritan community were expected to attend church, membership carried with it the right to vote in church matters and to take communion, and it was considered a strong indication that one would receive eternal salvation. Individuals demonstrated their worthiness for membership by testifying before the congregation that God had "sanctified" them, describing a conversion experience, or moment of revelation, that the congregation then evaluated. At the start, most Puritans had had such experiences. But as time passed, fewer and fewer of the subsequent generation of settlers could qualify for church membership.



I have seen PCA churches take a similar approach. I think that those posting on the list at least agree that this is not necessary. Our discussion has expanded beyond this initial point into the material importance of including children in the covenant. 

Scott


----------



## Scott

Adam: Regarding Ferguson's presentation of the history of this view, I woulc recommend reading D.G. Hart's works on the same topic. Hart is actually a historian as well as theologian. As I recall, Ferguson is not a historian. Oh yeah, it sounds like Shenck's work is good too, although I have not read it yet.

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Scott]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> On a happy note  , we should be able to confirm that we do agree on something important, namely that there is no need for a "crisis" - faith can come imperceptibly. I think this helps avoid a major revivalistic problem that led to strange issues, such as the Half-Way Covenant. It would not surprise me if some modern reformed got caught in that same trap, as their views can be so similar. Here is a interesting excerpt from an essay on the Half-Way Covenant that describes what is essentially a revivalistic experience:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritans had made the arduous journey to the New World in order to establish a pure community of like-minded Christians, a "City on a Hill." Although all members of a Puritan community were expected to attend church, membership carried with it the right to vote in church matters and to take communion, and it was considered a strong indication that one would receive eternal salvation. Individuals demonstrated their worthiness for membership by testifying before the congregation that God had "sanctified" them, describing a conversion experience, or moment of revelation, that the congregation then evaluated. At the start, most Puritans had had such experiences. But as time passed, fewer and fewer of the subsequent generation of settlers could qualify for church membership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen PCA churches take a similar approach. I think that those posting on the list at least agree that this is not necessary. Our discussion has expanded beyond this initial point into the material importance of including children in the covenant.
> 
> Scott
Click to expand...


Scott,

Where did you get that quote from?

The irony is that it does not describe "revivalistic" PCA churches or any other such animal. It describes those who espouse Baptismal Presumption and a low view of conversion. Notice that the members of the Half-Way covenant can vote (like a full communing member - no PCA church would allow that, much less one that required a "crisis" conversion). Notice also that these Half-Wayers are taking communion.

Now where have I seen someone argue against letting children of the Covenant take communion without a profession of faith? Oh yeah, that's right... it was me.

This is NOT revivalism. It is the logical consequence of Schenck's un-Calvinistic theology. Remember what Calvin's practice was -- although no one has even bothered to address it, let alone answer me -- Calvin required SIGNIFICANT profession and answers to catechism questions before admitting to the table.


----------



## Scott

Fred: We may be miscommunicating. You are not actually defending the situation prior to the Half-Way Covenant, are you? As I understand from your earlier post, you agree that faith can come imperceptibly and you do not require the intense emotional experience and testimony about a "moment of revelation" required the early Puritans. You don't require people to identify the "moment of revelation" do you? That would be inconsistent with the idea of impercetible acquisition of faith.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Fred: We may be miscommunicating. You are not actually defending the situation prior to the Half-Way Covenant, are you? As I understand from your earlier post, you agree that faith can come imperceptibly and you do not require the intense emotional experience and testimony about a "moment of revelation" required the early Puritans. You don't require people to identify the "moment of revelation" do you? That would be inconsistent with the idea of impercetible acquisition of faith.



No. I am saying that it is a wrong theological and historical assessment to say:

Revivalistic view of covenant --> halfway covenant --> people communing without a genuine conversion

What actually happens is:

exaggerated view of baptism --> halfway covenant --> non-converted, non-professors partaking

It is the views of Schlissel, Schenck and others that leads to the Half-way covenant, not the other way around. Remember that the Half-way covenant came about because of the "special status" conferred by baptism.

And to answer an obvious question from your earlier post:



> Adam and Fred: If, in spite of their baptism, you presume children to be unbelievers until some event, why don't you excommunicate them until that event happens?



unless you are outside the entire Western Church tradition and espouse paedocommunion (which you have said you don't, so I am making a point), you can't excommunicate persons who have never communed. That is the whole point of excommunication. It is not simply "being thrown out of the Church." It is being denied the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. So your question is like asking, if you are against murder, why not shoot trees?


----------



## Ianterrell

Fred.

Actually paedocommunion was practiced in the Western tradition far longer than anti-paedocommunion I think. And no I'm not a Paedocommie.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> And no I'm not a Paedocommie.



 Creative!


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Fred.
> 
> Actually paedocommunion was practiced in the Western tradition far longer than anti-paedocommunion I think. And no I'm not a Paedocommie.



You'd be wrong. You might have heard that from Tommy Lee, but you'd be wrong.


----------



## Scott

Fred: I disagree with your historical assessment. The Half-Way Covenant came precisely out of the revivalistic view. 

I would also be curious to know how you understand the proper enforcement of church censures against a child of covenant. It sounds like you are equating excommunication with simple suspension from the Lord's Supper. They are related but different. Excomunnication involves more; it involves casting the unbeliever out of fellowship. 

Anyway, since you presume that children of the covenant are unbelievers, at what point should the Church start enforcing penalties against them, such as completely casting them out of fellowship?


----------



## Scott

I have a question for Fred and Adam. Are there any preconditions for teaching toddlers and other children to pray in the name of Jesus?


----------



## Scott

Adam: I have a couple of other questions regarding this:



> This in no way removes the great advantages our children have has members of the covenant. Their baptism itself functions as a powerful call to faith and God certainly delights to work through families. Our children are set apart in the covenant community, live in homes where the ordinary means God (faith comes by hearing) uses to bring people to faith should be saturating their lives. They have fathers, mothers and elders seeking for their salvation. How this can be called putting our children in the same position as pagans is a mystery to me?



[1] Where does reformed theology teach that baptism is a call to salvation? It sounds like you see baptism as an evangelistic tool, as opposed to a seal (athenitication) of faith. 

[2] How does your view of children differ from that of any non-convenantal view? 

Scott


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Fred: We may be miscommunicating. You are not actually defending the situation prior to the Half-Way Covenant, are you? As I understand from your earlier post, you agree that faith can come imperceptibly and you do not require the intense emotional experience and testimony about a "moment of revelation" required the early Puritans. You don't require people to identify the "moment of revelation" do you? That would be inconsistent with the idea of impercetible acquisition of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am saying that it is a wrong theological and historical assessment to say:
> 
> Revivalistic view of covenant --> halfway covenant --> people communing without a genuine conversion
> 
> What actually happens is:
> 
> exaggerated view of baptism --> halfway covenant --> non-converted, non-professors partaking
> 
> It is the views of Schlissel, Schenck and others that leads to the Half-way covenant, not the other way around. Remember that the Half-way covenant came about because of the "special status" conferred by baptism.
Click to expand...


Actually I think you're both right. Solomon Stoddard taught that the Lord's Supper could be used as a converting ordinance for those who had not yet professed faith but were still baptized as children. THey had an over-emphasis on baptism, and maybe, an over emphasis on the need for a specific converting experience. But that was Solomon Stoddard. There were several New England puritans who opposed the half-way covenant, Edward Taylor being one of the most notable. 

Either way, the tradition that we are to require fruit with our profession goes back far further than revivalism to Calvin himself. I'm still waiting for the PR's to respond to that point. 

No one here is arguing for a crisis conversion, and I've never been to a reformed church that requires one for admittance to communion. I've sat in with the session during an interview (ouside my own) and all they look for is evidence of faith in Christ, not a crisis. I did not have a crisis conversion and I told that to both of the sessions of the churches I've been members of and it was not an obstacle to either session. So I think the charges of revivalism are completely overblown. There may be some influences here and there but it's not the reformed mainstream. So lets drop the strawmen please.


----------



## AdamM

Scott, I hope to have time to get to some of your questions later today, but in the meantime I have cut and pasted some relevant excerpts from a great article written by Matthew and Scott´s pastor below that deals with these issues. Rev. Phillips has an approach (Experimental Calvinism / see - Banner of Truth) to these issues that I share and I know he is able to express it in a much better then I am capable of doing. 

http://www.gpts.edu/resources/resource_covconfusion.html



> KEY FEATURES OF THE NEW APPROACH TO COVENANT
> This new definition of covenant, grounded in unsound Trinitarian speculation, serves to advance three features notable in the current debate. The first is the supplanting of traditional soteriology with a re-charged ecclesiology. Indeed, this seems to be one of the main motives for this new theology of covenant. The argument goes like this (here I am following Peter Leithart): none of us exist on our own, so being is being-in-relationship; I only am what I am with respect to the community in which I relate to others. For instance, I am named Phillips not because of something essential about me, but because of my relationship with other people named Phillips. Thus what makes me a Christian is being in the church. Leithart writes, "Entry into the church is always a soteriological fact for the person who enters... If the church is the 'house of God' (WCF 25.2), then membership in the church makes the person a member of that household." 17 Note the word makes. Membership in the church is not correlative with becoming a child of God; it makes a person a child of God.
> 
> This is what I mean by the supplanting of soteriology with ecclesiology. Instead of realizing that our relationship with God is primary, so that salvation is primarily a spiritual reality in which our relationship one with another in the church is derivative from our relationship with God, this revamped covenant theology puts it precisely backward. Under this view, our relationship with the church is primary, so that salvation is primarily a social and cultural reality, and our relationship with God is derivative from our relationship in the church.
> 
> A second and related feature of this approach is its emphasis on the external and the objective over the internal and subjective. This is touted as its main attraction. Douglas Wilson boasts of "recovering the objectivity of the covenant," the subtitle of his book Reformed Is Not Enough. This means I can know objectively I am right with God because I am in the church. He exults, "Covenants of God have a physical aspect, like an oak tree." 18 Presumably, the point is that we can physically climb into it.
> 
> This is supposed to deliver us from the so-called plague of "morbid introspection" - that is, from ascertaining the presence of a real and personal faith that brings me into relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I am freed from all this simply by noting that I am physically in the church and therefore in covenant with God. This emphasis would not be so dangerous if its proponents, such as the Auburn Avenue theologians, allowed for the distinction between the visible and the invisible church that is so essential to the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards. But since they insist that there is no other church than the one that is visible and physical, their emphasis on ecclesiology over soteriology and the external over the internal is all the more alarming.
> 
> Both of these first two features come together in the great importance assigned to baptism, which in this system exerts a controlling influence over the assurance of salvation. Since they believe that we enter into a saving relationship with God through entry into the church (rather than vice versa), then since baptism is the rite of entry into the church it is also the route of entry into all of salvation's blessings. Instead of serving as a visible sign and seal of the covenant promise, baptism becomes the way the promise is made real to the recipient. As an example, Rich Lusk writes, "Baptism is the means through which the Spirit unites us to Christ. No other means is said to have this function; it is the peculiar grace attached to baptism... Since baptism is the instrumental means of union with Christ, it is sometimes said to be the instrument of forgiveness and regeneration (Acts 2:38, 22:16; Tit. 3:5). These are the chief blessings of union with Christ; they are offered in baptism and received by faith. In other words, baptism is simply the gospel in aqueous form."
> 
> The problem with this is that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9) and, according to the Westminster Confession, baptismal grace does not create faith but strengthens existing faith (see WCF XIV.1). That is true even for infants who come to faith sometime after their baptisms. "The grace of faith," says the Confession, "is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened." Therefore, we must distinguish between the respective ministries of the Word and of the sacraments: the former both creates and strengthens saving faith, whereas the latter does not create saving faith but does strengthen it. The point is that salvation's blessings, such as forgiveness, come via faith, which faith is wrought by the Holy Spirit through the ministry of the Word. Baptism does not grant those blessings but confirms them, just as it does not create but strengthens faith.
> 
> What this means is that we should not look to the rite of baptism as the ground of our assurance, for the simple reasons that we may be baptized without believing and that if we believe it is because of God's Word and not because of baptism. Here, too, we have a confusion of the sign for the thing signified. Baptism is a sign of Christ's cleansing blood and the Spirit's cleansing renewal. We should look to the reality - to the thing signified - and not to the sign for our assurance. This is the error against which the New Testament constantly warns us - presuming salvation because of external association with the gospel. Michael Horton observes, "This is what Paul and the writer to the Hebrews especially labor to make plain to Jewish Christians: You who have received the sign beware lest you fall short of trusting in Christ and all his benefits (the thing signified)." 20 Just as Paul and the Book of Hebrews warn their Jewish readers against presuming salvation simply because they possessed circumcision (see Romans 9:6-8 and Hebrews 4:1-2), the last thing we need to tell Christian children is to rest assured on their possession of baptism, apart from a credible profession of faith in God's Word.
> 
> We may ask, "Why this fixation on baptism?" The answer we are given is that we need to ground our assurance of salvation on something objective and concrete rather than in "morbid introspection" of our inner spiritual state. Steve Wilkins argues that this "enables us to assure Christians of their acceptance with God without needlessly undermining their confidence in God's promises by forcing them to ask questions of themselves they cannot answer with certainty."21 He makes clear in a footnote that these needless inquiries have to do with the credibility of their profession of faith.
> 
> Another proponent argues that baptism is necessary to rescue us from "the quicksand of subjectivity: experiences of conversion, feelings of spirituality, good works, holy living, an internal sense of forgiveness, signs and traces of some immediate work of the Spirit in our souls, and so on." 22 The problem is that it is to these very things, rightly defined, that the Bible tells us to look for our assurance.
> 
> Instead of the biblically-defined marks of true and saving faith, followers of the Auburn Avenue theology are told to rely upon the fact that they were baptized, which allows them to presume their salvation until such time as they completely apostasy. But what this propounds is not an objective covenant but an externalism and formalism in religion in the place of the personal, inner spirituality of faith.
> I have no doubt that this approach resonates with many people today who crave a community with substance, who want to see and touch and smell their Christianity. These are worthy ends, but this false covenant theology is the wrong means. I say this because the Bible actively discourages such an approach to one's relationship with God. Jeremiah, who spoke eloquently about taking the right turn at the crossroads, preached in the very next chapter his most potent sermon on just this theme. Jeremiah stood before not just any church but before Solomon's temple in Jerusalem. He urgently warned them against relying on any external affiliation with even that great temple apart from true and saving faith. He cried, "Do not trust in these deceptive words: 'This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord'" (Jer. 7:4).
> 
> God never tells us to believe that we are right with him simply because we are in the church. The community of the church is not the covenant; it is a product of the covenant. The covenant is not something we can climb into by walking up a certain set of stairs. Rather, it is the way of salvation by which God invites us into relationship with himself through Jesus Christ and only in consequence into relationship with one another.
> 
> A THEOLOGY OF COVENANT CHILDREN
> When you ask those who are trying to rewrite covenant theology what concerns are driving them, as I have had the opportunity to do first-hand with some of them, you will inevitably hear them address the subject of covenant children. This is where many of us will most resonate with them, because of our shared concern for non-covenantal views of children that seemingly dominate today. For many evangelicals, until a child has had a dramatic conversion experience they are considered pagans within their own Christian homes. Some Christian children are taught not to say the Lord's prayer and not to call God "our Father." In many churches, children are not allowed in the worship service until they "come of age."
> 
> It is in response to this that many turn to covenant theology to take a vastly more positive view of children growing up in Christian homes and in the church. Douglas Wilson writes, "In a very real way, this debate is a debate over the theology of children. This is important because in the American church our theology of children is overwhelmingly baptistic, even in paedo-baptist communions." He cites the attitude of 19th century Southern Presbyterian theologian, Henry Thornwell, who said the Church must treat her children "precisely as she treats all other impenitent and unbelieving men - she is to exercise the power of the keys, and shut them out from the communion of the saints." 38
> To this attitude, the response is made that children are members of God's covenant and are holy, that is, are saints, by virtue of their parents (1 Cor. 7:14). To this we should agree, although we need to be careful of the sense in which we mean this. Rightly, it means that children are part of the community of God's people and have been given God's Word. In their baptism they have God's mark of ownership placed upon them and are called to faith. The prayers of the church belong to them and they have the privilege of oversight from the church's shepherds. These things we must insist upon as the right of our children by birth. What we must not do, however, is presume regeneration or salvation. While the children of believers are blessed with great privileges, salvation itself is not by heredity; saving grace does not pass on, as some have suggested, through the sperm and ovum of parents.
> 
> When it comes to covenant succession, we should not presume regeneration in our children, but instead hold a trusting confidence in God combined with a prayerful attention to duty as Christian parents. Here, the emphasis varies. Douglas Wilson writes, "When we have faith that works its way out in love, which is the only thing that genuine faith can do, then the condition that God set for the fulfillment of His promises has been met. Can we fulfill our covenant responsibilities (by believing) and yet have God fail to fulfill His promises? It is not possible." 39 The problem with this is an automaticity that does not square with lived experience or with the whole biblical picture. Children can be raised in the church by faithful parents, yet they turn away from faith in Christ. Wilson considers this a disbelieving of God's promises on account of the testimony of men. In fact, his position is an example of standing on a few select and favored promises in such a way that fails to account for the whole counsel of God. Wilson's teaching wrongfully accuses already grieving parents of damning their children by being not faithful enough. This is just one place in which the new covenant theology turns biblical decretal theology on its head. Instead of God's election controlling the covenant, Wilson and others have the covenant controlling God's election. But, as Paul points out in Romans 9:10-12, "Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue," God said, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." It was not God's sovereign purpose either for Ishmael, the first son of Abraham, or Esau, the son of Isaac, to enter into eternal life. The reason is not the faithlessness of these fathers but the plan of God, whose promises all are "Yes" only in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20).
> 
> Wilson's is a moderate view among those trying to recast covenant theology. For many, the concern to account for the salvation of infants who die becomes the controlling issue in their entire doctrine of salvation. Unwilling to rest upon the silence with which Scripture treats the exceptional issue of how elect infants are saved (in contrast with that they are saved, of which Scripture is clear), they concoct a theology of salvation that recasts the normal situation of children of who do not die in infancy. Some insist that infants of Christian parents must be presumed regenerate on the basis of their possessing faith - the example of John the Baptist leaping in the womb is given to prove that infants can believe. Asserting that infants can believe, while granting that infants cannot understand biblical teaching, some go so far as to redefine faith in such a way that biblical understanding plays no necessary part. For others, John the Baptist's proof that an unborn infant can believe is combined with a presumption of regeneration in the case of all covenant infants. Others yet over-exegete passages like Matthew 18:14, where Jesus said of the covenant children that were brought to him, "for to such belongs the kingdom of God." This is taken as a blanket declaration that all covenant children are saved until such time as they should apostasy.
> 
> On these grounds, objection is made to the idea that we must lead our children to Christ and evangelize them with the aim of a credible profession of faith. This is not treating them as pagans, as though they have no standing or privilege in the church until such time as they show faith. It does not mean trying to engineer some revivalistic crisis so that our children can be converted, as has been charged. Yet another over-reaction is so to emphasize the significance of infant baptism that it practically supplants the place of personal faith. Baptism is indeed more than a wet dedication of our children, yet it grants no grace apart from our children's personal embrace of the gospel in saving faith; for all our gratitude for what baptism means for our children, it is only on credible evidence of faith in Christ that we should rest our own and our children's assurance of salvation. As Charles Hodge wrote, we receive God's promised salvation "not by birth, nor by any outward rite, nor by union with any external body, but by the gospel, received and appropriated by faith."
> 
> Overall, the confidence with which advocates of this recast covenant theology approach the status of our children before God is the most attractive feature of their writings. It has involved for many a potent corrective to the effects of revivalism within their homes, which has had so many look upon their children as utter pagans until they have had a crisis conversion to Christ, the engineering of which can dominate whole childhoods. The problem, however, is that many writers simply go to far in their zeal for the status of covenant children, failing to be rightly balanced by the whole counsel of God. We have no reason to presume regeneration - a dangerous conception if there ever was one - nor should we fail to note the difference between covenant children who have not made profession of faith and those who have. I am speaking in the latter case of the growing practice of paedo-communion, which on the basis of presumed regeneration admits little children to the Lord's Table, totally neglecting the apostle Paul's warnings in 1 Corinthians 11:28-31 against those who partake of Communion without personal faith in that which it signifies.
> In other words, from the excesses of the revivalistic mentality, we may return to a more biblically balanced position regarding our children without the excesses of hyper-covenantalism. We may prayerfully aspire for our children to what David wrote in Psalm 22:9-10, without presuming that this happens in an automatic fashion: "You made me trust you at my mother's breasts"¦ From my mother's womb you have been my God." That should not be read as a technical statement by the great Psalmist, but as a poetic expression of God's life-long faithfulness to him. We can and should have a very high view of the spiritual situation of Christian children without an unbalanced view of their covenant position that warps our whole doctrine of salvation.41 One example of this comes from G. Campbell Morgan, hardly an advocate of overblown covenant theology, who taught his congregation:
> 
> Our first business is to bring the child into a recognition of its actual relationship to Christ, and a personal yielding thereto. Let it be done easily and naturally. Do not be anxious, if indeed your home is a Christian home, that your child should pass through any volcanic experience; but as soon as possible the little one should be able to say, Yes, I love Him and I will be His. It is as simple as the kiss of morning upon the brow of the hill, as the distilling of the moisture in the dew, or it ought to be. Thank God for men who, having wandered far away, have come back by volcanic methods, but thank God for the little ones who have been led to the point of yielding and finding their Lord before any other lord has had dominion over them.


----------



## AdamM

> No one here is arguing for a crisis conversion, and I've never been to a reformed church that requires one for admittance to communion. I've sat in with the session during an interview (ouside my own) and all they look for is evidence of faith in Christ, not a crisis. I did not have a crisis conversion and I told that to both of the sessions of the churches I've been members of and it was not an obstacle to either session. So I think the charges of revivalism are completely overblown. There may be some influences here and there but it's not the reformed mainstream. So lets drop the strawmen please.



Well said Patrick. Nobody here is arguing for the necessity of crisis conversions or the use of revivalists methods. I think it is clear that the debate is really over the necessity of any type of conversion at all. Thomas Watson and Williams Guthrie never were Americans or congregationalists and I think most of us would agree that their thinking simply represents mainstream English Puritanism, which found its expression in our confessional standards. I also cringe to read that the Sinclair Ferguson, perhaps the finest, most well balanced theologian of our day is closet revivalist. That just doesn´t pass the sniff test.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Fred: I disagree with your historical assessment. The Half-Way Covenant came precisely out of the revivalistic view.
> 
> I would also be curious to know how you understand the proper enforcement of church censures against a child of covenant. It sounds like you are equating excommunication with simple suspension from the Lord's Supper. They are related but different. Excomunnication involves more; it involves casting the unbeliever out of fellowship.
> 
> Anyway, since you presume that children of the covenant are unbelievers, at what point should the Church start enforcing penalties against them, such as completely casting them out of fellowship?



Scott,

You can disagree, because it helps your argument, but you would simply be wrong. The New England Puritans were not revivalists - they ran Jonathan Edwards out of town because of his support for the Great Awakening. They did not eventually become Finneyites (like the Midwest and South), but rather they became Unitarians - partly through the influence of the Half-Way Covenant and its downplaying of conversion.

How in the world does one get from requiring a crisis conversion to requiring NO (yes NO, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH) conversion to partake of the Supper? Let's see - who does this (taking the supper without a profession (credible or not) of faith) sound more like:

A. Revivalists in our day who say you aren't saved unless you have an extraordinary ("saved from drugs and alcohol) experience

OR

B. RefCats who say that conversion is an afterthought, don't press your covenant children about it, and by the way, paedocommunion is the way to go.

Hmm?


----------



## Scott

Fred: Again, I am not saying that a person need not have faith in Christ to take the Lord's Supper. Of course he does. My thrust is the persective we should have toward covenant children. 

As to the half-way covenant, again I don't think you understand what was going on or else you would not have risen to the defense of the early Puritans views, which clearly required crisis conversions and identification of that special "moment of revelation." As I understand, you expessly reject this view.


----------



## Scott

Fred: I would be interested on you answer to the questions I asked Adam. How does your view of children differ from that of a non-convenantal view (say that of a credobaptist)?


----------



## Scott

In terms of whether a "conversion" is required at all, let me be clear, a child must be able to affirmatively answer that he has faith in Christ before partaking of the Lord's Supper.


----------



## raderag

*I have a few comments.*

I have tried to read this thread, but it is very long. If I say something that has already been addressed, please forgive.

Firstly, I notice that much of the discussion revolves around what our confessions say as well as historical writings of others in our camp. While I believe our conclusions should be in this framework, it seems as if consulting WCF on an issue that it doesn't speak to is not that useful. If we want to understand the errors in revivalism, we should look to scripture as the first source. Secondly, we should look to the orthodox dealing with the issues during the revivalist period. We should assume that those that came before this error are going to err on both sides of the issues since it wasn't really that big of an issue. This is why prooftexting Augustine on sola fide is such a mistake; he seems to indicate an affirmation and denial of the doctine in his writings. In reality, Augustine was defending monergism, and not any specific doctrine on justification.

Secondly, I wonder if we shouldn't take a step out of our own tradition, and consider the law and Gospel distinction of our Lutheran friends. Rather than being concerned about when or how our conversion takes place, we need to consistently hear and teach both law and Gospel. There always needs to be a distinction. I think the Law and Gospel distinction is one that many reformed could learn from and more aptly apply. Ultimately, the lack of conversion is law, and we all need to hear. Our justification is Gospel, and we should all hear that also. The evangelical tendency is to preach law before conversion, and only gospel afterwards.

Here are some highlights from The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/lawandgospel.html



> 1] As the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is a special brilliant light, which serves to the end that God's Word may be rightly divided, and the Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles may be properly explained and understood, we must guard it with especial care, in order that these *two doctrines may not be mingled with one another, or a law be made out of the Gospel, whereby the merit of Christ is obscured and troubled consciences are robbed of their comfort,* which they otherwise have in the holy Gospel when it is preached genuinely and in its purity, and by which they can support themselves in their most grievous trials against the terrors of the Law.
> 3] Now, when we consider this dissent aright, it has been caused chiefly by this, that the term Gospel is not always employed and understood in one and the same sense, but in two ways, in the Holy Scriptures, as also by ancient and modern church teachers. 4] For *sometimes it is employed so that there is understood by it the entire doctrine of Christ, our Lord,* which He proclaimed in His ministry upon earth, and commanded to be proclaimed in the New Testament, and hence comprised in it the explanation of the Law and the proclamation of the favor and grace of God, His heavenly Father, as it is written, Mark 1, 1: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And shortly afterwards the chief heads are stated: Repentance and forgiveness of sins. Thus, when Christ after His resurrection commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel in all the world, Mark 16, 15, He compressed the sum of this doctrine into a few words, when He said, Luke 24, 46. 47: Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations. So Paul, too, calls his entire doctrine the Gospel, Acts 20, 21; but he embraces the sum of this doctrine under the two heads: Repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. 5] And in this sense the generalis definitio, that is, the description of the word Gospel, when employed in a wide sense and without the proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel is correct, when it is said that the Gospel is a preaching of repentance and the remission of sins. For John, Christ, and the apostles began their preaching with repentance and explained and urged not only the gracious promise of the forgiveness of sins, but also the Law of God. 6] Furthermore the term *Gospel is employed in another, namely, in its proper sense, by which it comprises not the preaching of repentance, but only the preaching of the grace of God*, as follows directly afterwards, Mark 1, 15, where Christ says: Repent, and believe the Gospel.
> "¦
> 19] Thus, the *Law reproves unbelief, [namely,] when men do not believe the Word of God.* Now, since the Gospel, which alone properly teaches and commands to believe in Christ, is God's Word, the Holy Ghost, through the office of the Law, also reproves unbelief, that men do not believe in Christ, although it is *properly the Gospel alone which teaches concerning saving faith in Christ. *
> 20] However, now that man has not kept the Law of God, but transgressed it, his corrupt nature, thoughts, words, and works fighting against it, for which reason he is under God's wrath, death, all temporal calamities, and the punishment of hell-fire, the Gospel is properly a doctrine which teaches what man should believe, that he may obtain forgiveness of sins with God, namely, that the Son of God, our Lord Christ, has taken upon Himself and borne the curse of the Law, has expiated and paid for all our sins, through whom alone we again enter into favor with God, obtain forgiveness of sins by faith, are delivered from death and all the punishments of sins, and eternally saved.
> 21] For *everything that comforts, that offers the favor and grace of God to transgressors of the Law, is, and is properly called, the Gospel*, a good and joyful message that God will not punish sins, but forgive them for Christ's sake.
> 22] Therefore every penitent sinner ought to believe, that is, place his confidence in the Lord Christ alone, that He was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4, 25, that He was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him, 2 Cor. 5, 21, who of God is made unto us Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Sanctification, and Redemption, 1 Cor. 1, 30, whose obedience is counted to us for righteousness before God's strict tribunal, so that the Law, as above set forth, is a ministration that kills through the letter and preaches condemnation, 2 Cor. 3, 7, but the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, Rom. 1, 16, that preaches righteousness and gives the Spirit, 1 Cor. 1, 18; Gal. 3, 2. As Dr. Luther has urged this distinction with especial diligence in nearly all his writings, and has properly shown that the knowledge of God derived from the Gospel is far different from that which is taught and learned from the Law, because even the heathen to a certain extent had a knowledge of God from the natural law, although they neither knew Him aright nor glorified Him aright, Rom. 1, 20f.
> 23] *From the beginning of the world these two proclamations [kinds of doctrines] have been ever and ever inculcated alongside of each other in the Church of God, with a proper distinction*. For the descendants of the venerated patriarchs, as also the patriarchs themselves, not only called to mind constantly how in the beginning man had been created righteous and holy by God, and through the fraud of the Serpent had transgressed God's command, had become a sinner, and had corrupted and precipitated himself with all his posterity into death and eternal condemnation, but also encouraged and comforted themselves again by the preaching concerning the Seed of the Woman, who would bruise the Serpent's head, Gen. 3, 15; likewise, concerning the Seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, Gen. 22, 18; likewise, concerning David's Son, who should restore again the kingdom of Israel and be a light to the heathen, Ps. 110, 1; Is. 49, 6; Luke 2, 32, who was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, by whose stripes we are healed, Is. 53, 5.
> 24] These two doctrines, we believe and confess, should ever and ever be diligently inculcated in the Church of God even to the end of the world, although with the proper distinction of which we have heard, in order that, *through the preaching of the Law and its threats in the ministry of the New Testament the hearts of impenitent men may be terrified, and brought to a knowledge of their sins and to repentance; but not in such a way that they lose heart and despair in this process, but that (since the Law is a schoolmaster unto Christ that we might be justified by faith, Gal. 3, 24, and thus points and leads us not from Christ, but to Christ, who is the end of the Law, Rom. 10, 4) 25] they be comforted and strengthened again by the preaching of the holy Gospel concerning Christ, our Lord, namely, that to those who believe the Gospel, God forgives all their sins through Christ, adopts them as children for His sake, and out of pure grace, without any merit on their part, justifies and saves them, however, not in such a way that they may abuse the grace of God,* 26] and sin hoping for grace, as Paul, 2 Cor. 3, 7ff , thoroughly and forcibly shows the distinction between the Law and the Gospel.
> 27]* Now, in order that both doctrines, that of the Law and that of the Gospel, be not mingled and confounded with one another, and what belongs to the one may not be ascribed to the other, whereby the merit and benefits of Christ are easily obscured and the Gospel is again turned into a doctrine of the Law,* as has occurred in the Papacy, and thus Christians are deprived of the true comfort which they have in the Gospel against the terrors of the Law, and the door is again opened in the Church of God to the Papacy, therefore the true and proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel must with all diligence be inculcated and preserved, and whatever gives occasion for confusion inter legem et evangelium (between the Law and the Gospel), that is, whereby the two doctrines, Law and Gospel, may be confounded and mingled into one doctrine, should be diligently prevented. It is, therefore, dangerous and wrong to convert the Gospel, properly so called, as distinguished from the Law, into a preaching of repentance or reproof [a preaching of repentance, reproving sin]. For otherwise, if understood in a general sense of the entire doctrine, also the Apology says several times that the Gospel is a preaching of repentance and the forgiveness of sins. Meanwhile, however, the Apology also shows that the *Gospel is properly the promise of the forgiveness of sins and of justification through Christ, but that the Law is a doctrine which reproves sins and condemns. *




Of course we should remember that revivalism came from the great Presbyterian, Charles Finney. :0

[Edited on 2-12-2004 by raderag]


----------



## turmeric

That's what we have at our church - law & gospel every Sunday. It seems that the gospel is a sanctifying force as well as a converting force.


----------



## AdamM

> Where does reformed theology teach that baptism is a call to salvation? It sounds like you see baptism as an evangelistic tool



Actually, the meaning of baptism encompasses the whole of salvation. To put it another way, I think our goal is to get our children to say "œamen" to their baptism. 




> How does your view of children differ from that of any non-convenantal view?



Scott, I thought I had answered this question previously in the thread, but I guess further elaboration will be helpful. 

Here according to our standards are some of the things we can definitively affirm about the status of * ALL * our covenant children:

- They are * Federally * Holy. (DPW)
- They have been set apart from the world. (WCF 27-1) 
- As covenant members they have a right to training, discipline and care from the church. 
- They are members of visible church, the historical administration of the administration of the COG. (WCF 25-2) 
-That baptism is means of grace for our covenant children who receive it in personal faith (WCF 28-6)
- That personal faith is not tied to the moment of administration. (WCF 28-6) 

I am confident that my position is squarely in line with the scriptures and the confessional standards of my denomination (PCA). I simply fail to see how a rejection of presumed regeneration equates with revivalism or makes any view other then presumptive regeneration the same as Baptists? I affirm that our children are members of the visible church, in the historical administration of the COG and therefore have a right to the sign and seal of the covenant. I affirm that our children are Federally Holy, set apart, separated from the world. I affirm that baptism is efficacious when received in faith and that faith is not tied to the moment of administration. I affirm that God´s grace is sovereign, but not arbitrary and that the covenant is a powerful instrument used by God to communicate grace. 

What I strongly reject is idea that the act of baptism confers grace apart from personal faith (opus operatum) or that the non-elect within the administration of the covenant of grace receive union with Christ through baptism. The standards (LC 166 & SC 95) clearly state that baptism is to be administered to infants in regard to their relationship to the administration of the covenant (as members of the visible church,) not based upon presumed regeneration. Unless we are willing to abandon the visible/visible church distinction, then membership in the visible church is no basis for us to presume that a person belongs to the invisible church (that is why the standards make the distinction.) Therefore as parents the goal of our seeking God, prayer and nurture is to get our children to close with Christ in faith (say "amen" to their baptism.) I don´t think that our covenant children coming to faith is out of the norm, because as I indicated earlier, God´s grace is sovereign (which rules out presumption,) but not arbitrary.


----------



## AdamM

Scott, here are a few related questions that I think it would be helpful for you think about and let us know your views on: 

1. Is it ever proper to call members of covenant (baptized members in good standing of the visible church) to repentance and personal faith in Christ?

2. Does the covenant in its historical administration contain both the elect and non-elect?

3. Does a person who has received the sign and seal of the covenant, necessarily possess the thing signified by the sign? 

4. Does the act of water baptism itself bring about union with Christ? 

5. Do the sacraments confer grace apart from their reception by personal faith? 

6. What grace is signed and sealed to the non-elect in baptism?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> Where does reformed theology teach that baptism is a call to salvation? It sounds like you see baptism as an evangelistic tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the meaning of baptism encompasses the whole of salvation. To put it another way, I think our goal is to get our children to say "œamen" to their baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does your view of children differ from that of any non-convenantal view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scott, I thought I had answered this question previously in the thread, but I guess further elaboration will be helpful.
> 
> Here according to our standards are some of the things we can definitively affirm about the status of * ALL * our covenant children:
> 
> - They are * Federally * Holy. (DPW)
> - They have been set apart from the world. (WCF 27-1)
> - As covenant members they have a right to training, discipline and care from the church.
> - They are members of visible church, the historical administration of the administration of the COG. (WCF 25-2)
> -That baptism is means of grace for our covenant children who receive it in personal faith (WCF 28-6)
> - That personal faith is not tied to the moment of administration. (WCF 28-6)
> 
> I am confident that my position is squarely in line with the scriptures and the confessional standards of my denomination (PCA). I simply fail to see how a rejection of presumed regeneration equates with revivalism or makes any view other then presumptive regeneration the same as Baptists? I affirm that our children are members of the visible church, in the historical administration of the COG and therefore have a right to the sign and seal of the covenant. I affirm that our children are Federally Holy, set apart, separated from the world. I affirm that baptism is efficacious when received in faith and that faith is not tied to the moment of administration. I affirm that God´s grace is sovereign, but not arbitrary and that the covenant is a powerful instrument used by God to communicate grace.
> 
> What I strongly reject is idea that the act of baptism confers grace apart from personal faith (opus operatum) or that the non-elect within the administration of the covenant of grace receive union with Christ through baptism. The standards (LC 166 & SC 95) clearly state that baptism is to be administered to infants in regard to their relationship to the administration of the covenant (as members of the visible church,) not based upon presumed regeneration. Unless we are willing to abandon the visible/visible church distinction, then membership in the visible church is no basis for us to presume that a person belongs to the invisible church (that is why the standards make the distinction.) Therefore as parents the goal of our seeking God, prayer and nurture is to get our children to close with Christ in faith (say "amen" to their baptism.) I don´t think that our covenant children coming to faith is out of the norm, because as I indicated earlier, God´s grace is sovereign (which rules out presumption,) but not arbitrary.
Click to expand...


 and again I say 

Adam, you need to plant a church or something in the next couple of years. I really want to work with you!! 

[Edited on 12/3/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Scott

Fred: Where do you think you will pastor?


----------



## Scott

Adam:

In response to your questions:

1. Is it ever proper to call members of covenant (baptized members in good standing of the visible church) to repentance and personal faith in Christ?

Yes. This includes adults.

2. Does the covenant in its historical administration contain both the elect and non-elect?

Yes.

3. Does a person who has received the sign and seal of the covenant, necessarily possess the thing signified by the sign? 

No.

4. Does the act of water baptism itself bring about union with Christ? 

No.

5. Do the sacraments confer grace apart from their reception by personal faith? 

No.

6. What grace is signed and sealed to the non-elect in baptism? 

Common operations of the Spirit.


----------



## Scott

> - They are Federally Holy. (DPW)
> - They have been set apart from the world. (WCF 27-1)
> - As covenant members they have a right to training, discipline and care from the church.
> - They are members of visible church, the historical administration of the administration of the COG. (WCF 25-2)
> -That baptism is means of grace for our covenant children who receive it in personal faith (WCF 28-6)
> - That personal faith is not tied to the moment of administration. (WCF 28-6)



Ok, I agree with these things too. How should the above views make the treatment of covenant children differ from that of parents or church officers holding non-covenantal perspective (dispensational, baptisitic, or whatever)? 

Your earlier posts indicated no difference at all, with the exception of using baptism as an evangelistic "call" (as opposed to a seal). I am thinking of this quote:



> Their baptism itself functions as a powerful call to faith and God certainly delights to work through families. Our children are set apart in the covenant community, live in homes where the ordinary means God (faith comes by hearing) uses to bring people to faith should be saturating their lives. They have fathers, mothers and elders seeking for their salvation.



The fundamental benefit is that the child is in a better position to be evangelized. I think dispensationalists and baptists would agree with this.

Thanks

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Scott

Fred: I am curious about your view of this quote from Adam:



> For what it's worth, to the child who hasn´t shown signs of being spiritually awakened the last thing in the world I would want to do is focus our attention on sanctification issues (external conformity to the law) because that will obscure the gospel with moralism. I think that is one of the big problems when people jettison the idea of conversion for our kids is that moralism is right there to fill the vacuum. If we presume all of children are converted and start them on steady diet of teaching on sanctifcation "“ where does that leave the child who has not been awakened yet? I fear that child gets the idea that the Christian faith equals external righteousness, do this "“ do that, instead of believe on the Lord. This is where the discernment of parents and elders that I mentioned earlier comes into play.



What parts of the Christian religion do you think that children should be taught or not taught prior to your judgment that the child has converted? I am curious about how your views on judging the child's conversion in practice shapes the way you train a child.

Thanks


----------



## turmeric

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Ok, I agree with these things too. How should the above views make the treatment of covenant children differ from that of parents or church officers holding non-covenantal perspective (dispensational, baptisitic, or whatever)?
> 
> The fundamental benefit is that the child is in a better position to be evangelized. I think dispensationalists and baptists would agree with this.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> So maybe dispensationalists & baptists have a vestigial covenant theology. Having grown up in these circles, I can attest to this. I'm not understanding this - what is so BAD about evangelizing covenant children - especially if it's done by simply going through the WCF or the catechism? Isn't that what instruction used to be about - evangelism & growth?
> And what is this strawman that keeps popping up about not teaching kids to pray in Jesus' name? Children being federally holy should be taught to do this. So what if one day they come and tell you they now believe? Do we tell 'em that ain't Presbyterian to have a crisis-conversion? Let's don't be silly on either side of this issue.
> 
> [Edited on 12-3-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Scott

"And what is this strawman that keeps popping up about not teaching kids to pray in Jesus' name?"

This is not a strawman. In some circles children are expressly taught not to pray in Jesus' name. One example of this is found in the popular Growing Kids Gods Way child rearing materials. 

I think it is also a practical question. For those who presume covenant children are really unsaved children of wrath, what does it teach children to pray in Jesus' name when they have not received Him as their savior? Hypocrisy? I think it is related to Adam's views of how to train children. There are certain parts of the Christian religion that he would not convey (elements related to sanctification) until he judges that the child has converted. 

I do understand why the Ezzos (Growing Kids authors) would take the position that children should not pray in the name of Jesus, even though I disagree with it. It is a natural outgrowth of the presumption that the children or believers are unsaved and need evangelism. This view, if held consistently, can really affect the way you bring up kids.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Fred: Where do you think you will pastor?



I really have no idea right now. My main concerns is to have a preaching pastorate (i.e. not an associate). We are open to the Lord's leading as to where. I am pointed in the direction of the PCA now, since that is where I have served and have almost all my contacts. But it may be difficult in this day and age as a "Vanilla Westminsterian"

Why? You lookin' for someone? 

[Edited on 12/3/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Fred: I am curious about your view of this quote from Adam:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, to the child who hasn´t shown signs of being spiritually awakened the last thing in the world I would want to do is focus our attention on sanctification issues (external conformity to the law) because that will obscure the gospel with moralism. I think that is one of the big problems when people jettison the idea of conversion for our kids is that moralism is right there to fill the vacuum. If we presume all of children are converted and start them on steady diet of teaching on sanctifcation "“ where does that leave the child who has not been awakened yet? I fear that child gets the idea that the Christian faith equals external righteousness, do this "“ do that, instead of believe on the Lord. This is where the discernment of parents and elders that I mentioned earlier comes into play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What parts of the Christian religion do you think that children should be taught or not taught prior to your judgment that the child has converted? I am curious about how your views on judging the child's conversion in practice shapes the way you train a child.
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...


Scott,

I think that no area of the Christian religion ought to be kept from children, including the necessity of public profession of faith in Christ (with the mouth we confess that Christ is Lord) and the absolute necessity of a new birth that is evidenced by fruit.

Here is the thing (as I think right now): for the child who has not shown fruit of conversion, his baptism is not a pillow to soften him, but a goad to push him on. He should not be put to sleep with cries of "you are a Christian, you have been baptized" but awakened with the dire threats of spurning the mark of God - "to whom much is given much is expected"


----------



## Scott

Fred: I am sure that you will make a great pastor and we need more vanilla Westminsterians! We are blessed to have a pastor of several years and are not looking for anyone right now. There is actually a good, established church in my presbytery that is genuinely reformed and I believe is looking for someone. Sinclair Ferguson has been preaching there quite a bit (on loan from Westminster Dallas). Paul Settle has also been involved. There was an unfortunate shake-up recently and a pastor of long0standing (and probably one of the better preachers in the area) left. 

Of course, you would have to be in Mark Horne's presbytery . . .



> Here is the thing (as I think right now): for the child who has not shown fruit of conversion, his baptism is not a pillow to soften him, but a goad to push him on. He should not be put to sleep with cries of "you are a Christian, you have been baptized" but awakened with the dire threats of spurning the mark of God - "to whom much is given much is expected"



Agreed. I think this is true for adults too. 

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Scott]

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Scott]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Fred: I am sure that you will make a great pastor and we need more vanilla Westminsterians! We are blessed to have a pastor of several years and are not looking for anyone right now. There is actually a good, established church in my presbytery that is genuinely reformed and I believe is looking for someone. Sinclair Ferguson has been preaching there quite a bit (on loan from Westminster Dallas). Paul Settle has also been involved.
> 
> Of course, you would have to be in Mark Horne's presbytery . . .



That alone might rule me out! But maybe you could vouch for me?? :bigsmile:


----------



## Scott

Sure!


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I think that no area of the Christian religion ought to be kept from children, including the necessity of public profession of faith in Christ (with the mouth we confess that Christ is Lord) and the absolute necessity of a new birth that is evidenced by fruit.
> 
> Here is the thing (as I think right now): for the child who has not shown fruit of conversion, his baptism is not a pillow to soften him, but a goad to push him on. He should not be put to sleep with cries of "you are a Christian, you have been baptized" but awakened with the dire threats of spurning the mark of God - "to whom much is given much is expected"


I agree. What makes our children different from pagans is that they have been set apart as members of the church. This requires their instruction in the faith, all of the faith. I for one, do teach my children to pray, especially for forgiveness of sin and faith in Christ. Perhaps one day, if they haven't already, they will pray it with a sincere heart, and all the rest of the instruction they received will click.


----------



## Scott

> I for one, do teach my children to pray, especially for forgiveness of sin and faith in Christ.



Do you teach them to pray in the name of Christ for faith in Christ? If so, that seems backwards.


----------



## AdamM

> Here is the thing (as I think right now): for the child who has not shown fruit of conversion, his baptism is not a pillow to soften him, but a goad to push him on. He should not be put to sleep with cries of "you are a Christian, you have been baptized" but awakened with the dire threats of spurning the mark of God - "to whom much is given much is expected"



Very well said Fred!


----------

