# Is it deceptive to teach someone they are in the New Covenant?



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 24, 2007)

puritancovenanter said:


> Another point I want to make is that every parent eveywhere is responsible for raising their children up in the LORD. It matters not if they are regenerate or not. We are all going to be held accountable for how we all discipled our children. It doesn't take some kind of doctrinal Covenant inclusion to do this. *In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach a child they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant.* It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant.



This I found strange. Would you say that this is true, in general?

That is to say, if it is true for children who may not be in the New Covenant, is this true for adults who may not be in the New Covenant?


----------



## Herald (Aug 24, 2007)

> That is to say, if it is true for children who may not be in the New Covenant, is this true for adults who may not be in the New Covenant?



Yes. If an adult is not born again then they would not be in the New Covenant. But this seems like a backdoor way of getting into a credo/paedo discussion, or was that the intent.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 24, 2007)

It was a simple question.

Who is appropriate, then, to say to them that they are in the New Covenant without a danger of being deceptive? Would you say that of somebody in your Church?


----------



## Herald (Aug 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> It was a simple question.
> 
> Who is appropriate, then, to say of them that they are in the New Covenant without a danger of being deceptive? Would you say that of somebody in your Church?



Rich - first, who can say with certainty that anyone is saved (which I would consider to be synonymous with being in the New Covenant)? I know what the gospel says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved." But I am constantly sobered by words such as Paul's when he says:



> 2 Corinthians 13:5 5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-- unless indeed you fail the test?



Telling someone, with certainty, that they are in the New Covenant is careless. Telling them that all those who have come to faith in Christ are in the New Covenant would be accurate in my book. 

Rich - what do you think about telling someone they are saved? (Note that I did not say "New Covenant" because I understand paedo's believe the entire visible church is in the New Covenant) Do you feel comfortable taking that stand or do you fall back to a passage such as 2 Cor. 13:5?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > It was a simple question.
> ...


So then, do you think Randy should have wrote it this way:



> Modified version of Randy's concern:
> 
> In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach *anyone* they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant.


Do you think this is a good way of putting it?



> Rich - what do you think about telling someone they are saved? (Note that I did not say "New Covenant" because I understand paedo's believe the entire visible church is in the New Covenant) Do you feel comfortable taking that stand or do you fall back to a passage such as 2 Cor. 13:5?


I think we should address the Church the way that Paul and the other Epistle writers address the Church. I'm interesting in pursuing the above because I want to uncover something here. The purpose of this thread is going to remain very specific.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 24, 2007)

Rich since it is my quote let me respond tomorrow please. I am extremely tired right now and I am headed to bed. Let me say that I would encourage assurance of forgiveness of sin where St. John does and consider an unrepentant person who never has confessed Christ to be outside of the Covenant. 

Goodnight brother.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 24, 2007)

Goodnight Randy. I'll let you answer this question in the morning.

Would you consider a person who has confessed Christ and _seems_ repentant to be inside the New Covenant?


----------



## Herald (Aug 24, 2007)

> Modified version of Randy's concern:
> 
> In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach *anyone* they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant.
> 
> Do you think this is a good way of putting it?



Depends. I want to be fair to Randy and not take his original quote out of context. If Randy used the world "child" it may have been appropriate given the discussion. But since we're addressing the disposition of individuals I defer back to my earlier comment. _"Telling someone, with certainty, that they are in the New Covenant is careless."_ We can tell an individual that all who are in Christ are saved, and thus in the New Covenant.

When I was good free-willy I would make sure I quoted 1 John 5:13 to each and every person I lead in the sinners prayer. I'd figuratively pat them on the fanny and send them on their way equipped with their assurance of salvation. I am ashamed of that now. Thank God that He forgives. I know this is not part of your question, but I now tell individuals what is necessary to be saved and call on them to repent and show evidence of salvation in their life. That's a thread in itself.



> I think we should address the Church the way that Paul and the other Epistle writers address the Church.



Which is?



> I'm interesting in pursuing the above because I want to uncover something here. The purpose of this thread is going to remain very specific.



Care to share or are you going to reveal this in your good time?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> > Modified version of Randy's concern:
> >
> > In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach *anyone* they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant.
> >
> ...


I know Randy's post is the impetus but I don't mind interacting with you. I think there is more being brought into the conversation at this point. The initial thread said that "..it is rather deceptive to teach a child they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord...."

The question is whether it is deceptive, as a general rule, to tell someone they are in the New Covenant since:
a. They _may_ be strangers to the covenant
b. it neglecets that the Covenant is based upon the forgiveness of sins and knowing the Lord

I would assume that children are not in a special class and it is only deceptive for them so I assume you are saying that it is deceptive to tell anybody they are in the New Covenant.

But, you see, there is a definitional problem here isn't there and you started to draw that out.

When Randy defined "New Covenant" he defined it as "Elect". Thus, he is importing what he views the sole defintion of the New Covenant and says, in essence:

"...it is rather deceptive to teach anyone they are ELECT when they may not be ELECT. It neglects the nature of what ELECTION is...."

It would seem then that the issue is whether we ever have warrant even hinting that a person _might_ be Elect - infant or adult.



> When I was good free-willy I would make sure I quoted 1 John 5:13 to each and every person I lead in the sinners prayer. I'd figuratively pat them on the fanny and send them on their way equipped with their assurance of salvation. I am ashamed of that now. Thank God that He forgives. I know this is not part of your question, but I now tell individuals what is necessary to be saved and call on them to repent and show evidence of salvation in their life. That's a thread in itself.


Yes, but let's stick with those who are in the visbile Church. Do you _only_ tell individuals in the visible Church what is necessary to be saved and call on them to repent and show evidence of salvation in their life? Is that how you exhort the Church?



> > I think we should address the Church the way that Paul and the other Epistle writers address the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is?


Well, Romans 5-8 is an example of a _manner_ of address that looks very presumptuous if you ask me according to some of the things said so far.

It seems very _deceptive_ of Paul, doesn't it, when he says this to the Roman Church:


> Romans 6
> 1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
> 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
> 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.


If it is deceptive to talk to people as if they possess benefits that they may not have then Paul is the chief deceiver!

Now, to anticipate an objection, I'm not arguing that this _necessarily_ applies to all children. In fact I know it does not. It does not apply to all professors either. Yet, the point is that Paul addresses the entire Church with words that can only possibly apply to the Elect. Why is that?


> > I'm interesting in pursuing the above because I want to uncover something here. The purpose of this thread is going to remain very specific.
> 
> 
> 
> Care to share or are you going to reveal this in your good time?


I'm doing a bit of it already. The whole prodding has as much to do with means of Grace in the visible Church as it does with Baptism incidentally.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Aug 24, 2007)

Hi:

Was not Esau Jacob's brother?

Grace,

-Ch


----------



## turmeric (Aug 24, 2007)

I think what some may be forgetting - or maybe they have a different take on things - is the judgment of charity. This assumes that if someone has made a *credible* profession, i.e. his life is consistent with his words most of the time, we treat him as if he's elect. We have to do this with ourselves as well. I'm going out on a limb here, so feel free to moderate this post, Rich; there seems to be a slightly perfectionistic bent, or maybe it's an attempt at precision, among our Baptistic brethren that can make it hard for an individual believer to rest on Christ's merits instead of constantly examining himself for "signs of election." This can be found in some of the Puritan writings as well.

As for "easy-believism", I hope those who have repented of that error won't throw the baby of resting in Christ out with the bathwater. (That may have been an unfortunate metaphor! )


----------



## christiana (Aug 24, 2007)

I think it is deceptive to teach anyone at all that they are elect, or saved!
Scripture says there must be a new birth with evidence of such.
One could be told that though they cannot be assured by anyone else that they have been reborn, they will surely begin to see the fruit of the spirit in their life and experience changes over time if this is so! They will love the brethren, love God with their whole heart and display the love, joy, peace and longsuffering that is the evidence of having been reborn! The wheat and tares will grow together and only God knows which are which for sure until that day!
Just the 2c of a layman from scripture.


----------



## 5solasmom (Aug 24, 2007)

Rich, thank you for pointing out how Paul addresses the church. 

I believe it is wholy biblical to consider those in the _visible_ church the elect - those in Covenant with God. We assume elect unless the fruit shows otherwise.


----------



## Herald (Aug 24, 2007)

Rich - either I haven't acquitted myself well in my first explanation or I have been misunderstood. I'm going to give this another stab.

_"Telling someone, with certainty, that they are in the New Covenant is careless"_ does not prohibit me or any minister of the gospel from proclaiming Romans 6*. Romans 6 is addressed to believers. While I cannot guarantee that someone is saved, I do believe it is possible for an individual to know they are saved. Please understand the distinction. The paedo would seem to have less trouble with this distinction since they may not feel compelled to separate between the wheat and the chaff. All (believers and unbelievers) in the membership are part of the visible church. Granted. Baptists understand that unbelievers can slip by and enter into membership. But as has been discussed previously and elsewhere, we do not consider these false brethren to be members of Christ's church or part of the New Covenant.

Allow me the liberty to take this discussion into the pastoral realm with two examples. A brother may be struggling with assurance of his salvation and comes to me for counseling. Through discussion the brother is solid on his knowledge of the gospel and claims to have placed his faith solely on Christ, but is struggling in respects to sin (either general or specific). Other than his sin struggle I am not able to find evidence that his profession was false. He is desirous of true repentance and to live a sanctified life. I accept his profession on the basis of faith and would therefore proceed in counseling this brother on the problem(s) at hand.

A second individual within the church is also struggling with sin. Unlike the first person this one has to be confronted. Lip service is given to being a Christian but there is scant evidence to bolster his claim. There is no brokenness, repentance or desire for change. Instead of a war within his members there is harmony, if only with sin. Instead of counsel would come rebuke and a plea to be reconciled with Christ. 

Rich - so you ask the question:



> It would seem then that the issue is whether we ever have warrant even hinting that a person might be Elect - infant or adult.



If a person claims to be elect and displays the evidence of faith, we must proceed believing that they are. That is the flip side of the question, "Is it possible to know whether someone is elect?" In answer to that question I must respond with, "I don't know." I don't see my response as a result of being credo or paedo. How can anyone _know for certain_ that a person is elect? Some imposter's can be very, very good. But we must proceed believing that individuals are elect based on the qualifying information available. Discontinuity? No. Just a contrast between believing based on the information available and understanding our limitations in knowing the secret things. 

Rich - you also asked:



> Do you only tell individuals in the visible Church what is necessary to be saved and call on them to repent and show evidence of salvation in their life? Is that how you exhort the Church?



Yes. This is the gospel and it is to be part of all biblical preaching and admonition. It is the call to sanctified living. It is at the heart of 2 Cor. 13:5. Do I proclaim the gospel because I believe there may be unbelievers within the sheep fold? Yes, that is always a motivation. But as I just eluded to, the gospel is also a call for believers to be more like Christ. 



> The whole prodding has as much to do with means of Grace in the visible Church as it does with Baptism incidentally.



We'll see where this goes.

_* Incidentally, I am preaching on Romans 6 (in two parts) starting next week. This thread will be good fodder. Thanks for bringing it up._


----------



## 5solasmom (Aug 24, 2007)

christiana said:


> I think it is deceptive to teach anyone at all that they are elect, or saved!



I am curious then how you would view Paul and the passage Rich shared?

Or, would you say that addressing a church with these statements is fine, but telling each of those church members individually, one on one the same things is deceptive?


----------



## 5solasmom (Aug 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> _"Telling someone, with certainty, that they are in the New Covenant is careless"_ does not prohibit me or any minister of the gospel from proclaiming Romans 6*. Romans 6 is addressed to believers.



I'm confused by this point, and maybe it's just me. But I'm not sure how Paul can preach this to believers when he didn't know with certainty they were all true believers?


----------



## Herald (Aug 24, 2007)

5solasmom said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> > _"Telling someone, with certainty, that they are in the New Covenant is careless"_ does not prohibit me or any minister of the gospel from proclaiming Romans 6*. Romans 6 is addressed to believers.
> ...



Dawn - apostolic authority aside, how can anyone know for certain that a person is a believer? I suppose it can be argued that Paul could know because he was an Apostle and could be given this knowledge through special revelation. But Paul was also writing to a church. Paul would have known, as we do today, that there is usually wheat and chaff within the membership. His instructions are for believers for he must proceed with that intent in mind.


----------



## satz (Aug 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> It would seem then that the issue is whether we ever have warrant even hinting that a person _might_ be Elect - infant or adult.



Rich, I am not sure of what importance this question is to your primary inquiry, but I believe that at least for believers capable of a profession of faith ie young children and upwards, you can with reasonable (not complete) certainty say a person is elect. 

While some may disagree, I believe faith + works is the evidence of salvation as we mature in our christian lives. And a life of faith in Christ combined with good works and fruit can even give one confidence to say someone is indeed elect.

So yes, I would say it is possible to tell someone they are elect, in certain conditions.

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

1 Thessalonians 1:3-4 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.


----------



## christiana (Aug 24, 2007)

5solasmom said:


> christiana said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is deceptive to teach anyone at all that they are elect, or saved!
> ...



I was thinking of new 'converts' and would be guiding them to read 1 John to be certain that they had truly been born again and to not assume they were because they might have signed a card, walked an aisle, or whatever but in fact had truly experienced regeneration by the Holy Spirit in their life.

I'm not a minister and my thoughts are, of course when addressing a congregation that the minister does so with scripture that validates what occurs in the life of believers. That still does not serve to offer false hope to 'professors' but encourages all to 'make their calling and election sure'. The tests given in 1 John clearly tell how one can be sure if they are in fact regenerate!


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I think we should address the Church the way that Paul and the other Epistle writers address the Church.



Paul addressed the church (visible) at Rome with 11 chapters of the content of the gospel. Then he exhorted them through specifics to live it. So, he had no problem preaching the gospel to the visible church.

The Epistle writers make general statements to the visible church as if they were all believers, with many warnings to those who are just pretenders. This is how you should address the church.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> If it is deceptive to talk to people as if they possess benefits that they may not have then Paul is the chief deceiver!



Paul does not suggest to people that they can assume they are in! He often, as do the other writers, warns those who are part of the visible church and have made a claim to be in Christ to be careful lest they come up short in the end. What does this prove, that their are unbelievers that have infiltrated the visible church? So what? We all recognize that this is not only possible, but definite.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 24, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > If it is deceptive to talk to people as if they possess benefits that they may not have then Paul is the chief deceiver!
> ...



Rich, I apologize if I sounded too antagonistic in my response. I know I could have edited it out, but then I would have nothing to apologize for and that would not do me any good in the area of humility (which I obviously need sometimes).

I do believe you are asking a very valid question and I know that when this plays out, you are going to give us your point. I'm just trying to figure out what it is beforehand.


----------



## 5solasmom (Aug 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> 5solasmom said:
> 
> 
> > BaptistInCrisis said:
> ...



I agree. That was why I asked. 

The issue is that he is addressing the _church corporate_. He is speaking to the church corporate _as_ as a body of believers (who, in a baptist view, are also in the NC because believers=NC). 

Then this is the problem....since we cannot know for sure all in the corporate church ARE believers, and Paul here is addressing them as though they ARE...and it's deceptive to assume or give anyone assurance that they ARE in the NC/are believers (in a baptist view)...then Paul is being deceptive.

So I'm still confused...


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 24, 2007)

5solasmom said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> > 5solasmom said:
> ...



But Paul doesn't *just* write Romans 6 to these people (the church corporate). He had already written Romans 4:23-25, which indicates who can count the promises of Romans as theirs.



> Romans 4:23-25 - Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.



Romans 6:2 talks of those who have died to sin. Certainly Paul is not suggesting that any unbelievers among them have died to sin, is he? No, Paul is talking about those who are in Christ, which he described in Romans 5:16-17. 



> Romans 5:16-17 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.



Notice that there is justification, receiving abundance of grace, and receiving the gift of righteousness. This could hardly described unbelieving members of a covenant community.

How is Romans 6:17-18 true of unbelievers?



> Romans 6:17-18 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.



Romans 8 begins to get into a slight warning to those who make a claim of being in covenant with God, but do not walk according to the Spirit, but according to the flesh.



> Romans 8:3-4 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.



Notice, Paul is making a distinction here between two parties: those according to the flesh and those according to the Spirit. There is a tone of warning here to those who claim to be in the covenant but walk according to the flesh.



> Romans 8:5-9 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.



Here is a major warning to those who make a false claim. They cannot please God. They are his enemies (not his covenant people!). The do not have the Spirit of God and, therefore, do not belong to Christ. (far from being in covenant with God, don't you think?)

The point of the letters to the churches is not that the writers are assuming that the unbelieving members of the covenant community can be spoken to as Christians. The point is that everyone who is being written to as a member of the covenant community has made a claim of Christianity. Therefore, they can be expected to live like it. If they do not, they betray that they are really not in covenant with God, no matter what they claim. They can expect a fiery judgment. The letters to the churches contain both wonderful promises to believers and scary warnings to pretenders.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 24, 2007)

In short, if I stood in front of the church I served and only offered them the benefits of the union with God in my sermons and never gave them stern warnings to make their election and calling sure (as did Paul and Peter and John), then I would be doing a disservice to them and failing my calling.

Does this prove that I should baptize children? I don't see how.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 24, 2007)

In addition, the letter to the Romans was written to saints, not a mixed bag of believers and unbelievers:



> Romans 1:5-7 Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; 7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.



Were there unbelievers in this group? Paul obviously in the bulk of the letter assumed the possibility. But he was writing to all those who claimed to be united to Christ.


----------



## 5solasmom (Aug 24, 2007)

I'm not arguing that everyone in the NC (not the same as "covenant community" in your view...at least I'm thinking this so please correct me if I'm wrong) is saved. I'm saying that we address/treat visible/joined members of the church _as believers_, not that we don't warn them of the danger of apostacy or not encourage them to make their calling and election sure etc. There is definately a balance here.

I believe that it's most consistent with scripture to address the church corporate as a believing body (of which baptists would say believer=NC member). We see this with Romans and in Paul's benediction in several other epistles (including one where the children are addressed as church members). 

The original issue was whether it was deceptive to address anyone as a believer/NC member unless we know for certain. Some have said yes. From what I can tell of scripture, we address church members _as believers _and it is not deceptive to do so. So my answer would be no.


I'm no where near as adept at this as others here, but as best as I can explain, this is my understanding.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 24, 2007)

5solasmom said:


> I'm not arguing that everyone in the NC (not the same as "covenant community" in your view...at least I'm thinking this so please correct me if I'm wrong) is saved. I'm saying that we address/treat visible/joined members of the church _as believers_, not that we don't warn them of the danger of apostacy or not encourage them to make their calling and election sure etc. There is definately a balance here.
> 
> I believe that it's most consistent with scripture to address the church corporate as a believing body (of which baptists would say believer=NC member). We see this with Romans and in Paul's benediction in several other epistles (including one where the children are addressed as church members).
> 
> ...



We are in agreement! Although there may be unbelievers in the community (which I believe = New Covenant) due to their hypocrisy, I believe we, until they prove themselves apostate, address them as believers.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Goodnight Randy. I'll let you answer this question in the morning.
> 
> Would you consider a person who has confessed Christ and _seems_ repentant to be inside the New Covenant?



Welll, my head is a little clearer now. 

Rich, the quote you took off on was truly in reference to infant baptism. I don't believe an infant can respond to the gospel. The first thing a child does is become cognisant of their surroundings and then they become self aware. I think the doctrine of presumptive regeneration is kind of telling oneself to deceptively, most likely deceive oneself and the deception can spill over into the childs life. The truth is what sets us free. I do believe one needs to respond to the gospel in order to be a member of the New Covenant for the reasons I have stated elsewhere. Sins are forgiven if an individual is a New covenant Memeber. 

Hope that is clear as mud.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 24, 2007)

The Reformed answer to this is not to distinguish between the "New" Covenant and the "old" in the way presupposed by the question.

The Reformed answer is to say, with the Synod of Dort (CD 1.17)



> Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended...



Belgic Conf. Art 34:



> For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children.
> 
> And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults. Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ.



Heidelberg Catechism Q 74:



> 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
> 
> Yes, for since they belong to the covenant and people of God as well as their parents, and since redemption from sin through the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as the sign of the Covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is instituted.



You will notice in these passages, the Reformed acknowledge a change in administration between the Old and New Covenants, but we do not make the New Covenant substantially different such that children are excluded from the administration.

The premise that only believers are "in" the New Covenant at all is the very thing to which the FV folks are responding. 

As I argued just today on the HB, there's no need either to follow the FV confusion of the administration with the decree or the Baptist confusion of decree and administration.

rsc


----------



## Herald (Aug 24, 2007)

> As I argued just today on the HB, there's no need either to follow the FV confusion of the administration with the decree or the Baptist confusion of decree and administration.



With all due respect, no one is suggesting that paedo's follow Baptists. The difference between Baptist and WCF-Reformed (a term I like to use) views of baptism and the New Covenant is well established. I don't believe this thread is attempting to address that. Rich has a direction he is trying to go with this thread and it seems to be to uncover what Baptists believe in regards to how we appeal to the church with the gospel and/or what it means to be in the New Covenant.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> It was a simple question.
> 
> Who is appropriate, then, to say to them that they are in the New Covenant without a danger of being deceptive? Would you say that of somebody in your Church?



So, back to the original question...

Rich, this is a tough issue for us, I admit. We like to think that we have a regenerate church membership as Baptists, but, then again, we really can't see someone's heart. And modern Baptists, who have been so lenient as to church membership are having huge problems in this area. Just ask the SBC. So, in specific answer to your specific question:

1) I think it would be deceptive to tell children they are in Covenant with God (i.e. the New Covenant) when they have not given credible evidence of regeneration by both profession and life. This would mean that I am *in most cases* opposed to baptizing "precocious 5-year olds" as I believe another thread put it. Most Baptists in history waited until about 12-16 years old to baptize a child. I wouldn't want to put a specific age on it, but I would be cautious in baptizing young children who only know how to parrot answers told them by their parents.

2) I think it would be deceptive to tell someone who is living in unrepentant sin that they are in the New Covenant no matter when they were baptized. Honestly, you know that we believe New Covenant=salvation. We don't use the term New Covenant in this context. We would say they have no assurance based on their lifestyle that they are truly saved. I think this would be the consistent view based on our belief.

I think those two cases are specifically "deceptive" rather than just misguided because we have ample evidence that those two types of people are not true believers. Notice carefully what I did not say about either one. I did *not* say that those who are young or those who are living in unrepentant sin are _definitely_ unbelievers. I just have no reason, other than their original profession and/or baptism to think they are. If a person puts their confidence in walking down the aisle or being dunked/sprinkled, then they really don't have much to be confident about.

I understand that paedos don't have this problem. You tell these same people (2nd case) that because they were baptized, though they are still in covenant, they are covenant breakers. But, then again, I don't understand how paedos view the final step of church discipline - that of treating a "so-called" brother as an unbeliever. Maybe I will start another thread to ask (not argue) that question.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 24, 2007)

These threads take on lives of their own and it has gotten really far down stream. I need to try to capture a few thoughts here. I think Dr. Clark brought up some things that I want to try to integrated.

1. Baptists keep talking about an overarching presumption that, in telling children they are in the New Covenant, they can "rest on their laurels". It's like we're saying: "Son, presume you are Elect and you have nothing to go to God for and say: 'Save Me!'"

In so doing, Baptists are actually projecting the problem with their own presumption. Dr. Clark called it confusing decree and administration. As I noted before, what are you telling someone if you say:
a. The New Covenant is with the elect alone.
b. We only baptize those we have "maximal confidence" are elect
c. We are baptizing _YOU_, the man who just confessed Christ.

In essence, you are giving him an unwarranted presumption. In fact, I was just listening to Gene Cook and John Goundry say the other day that Preachers only have to tell those outside the NC to "...know the Lord" (i.e. repent and be baptized) because we don't tell those in the NC that because that's been fulfilled. Notice the _presumption_ - they are baptized = they are in the New Covenant = they are elect.

This gets very confusing because I know if I press Gene on this he's going to admit that he doesn't know who's in the NC so the exercise of who you can and can't say "know the Lord" to becomes quite impossible. Do you see how Baptists can tie themselves into knots on this point if they actually thought about it? Yet, if you go back and read even portions of this thread we have people arguing that we should have people telling the Church: "Oh, I'm elect, the Holy Spirit told me so". 

Thus, I think the presumptive problem lies with the nature of Baptistic baptism and trying to find a nexus in the perfection of the New Covenant. It is not really fair for you to ascribe the presumption you have for the people you baptize with the hope and promise that we have for those we baptize.

2. Sadly, I feel a sense in which you are missing the very power and weight of the Gospel to convert. Romans 6 is part of the Gospel by the way. Notice what you guys keep saying about "presuming" on the part of sinners. Why do you think a reprobate man is going to presume any less for a Law passage (do this and live) than He is about a Gospel passage. If a man is dead in His sins and trespasses then he presumes upon everything. The Pharisees had presumption of the Law down pat as well as the threat of hell. They just deceived themselves that it didn't apply to them.

Bill, please check out my teaching on Romans 6 at our website if you get a chance - http://www.baptistchurch.jp/teaching.html

It is my conviction that passages like Romans 6 can actually convert the soul. They feed hungry Christian souls. I think you guys worry too much about the reprobate presuming upon Grace and not enough about feeding Grace to the elect you have in your midst. Even as we sneer at Roman Catholics who say: "Don't teach that kind of stuff because it's a license for liberty", we don't preach it openly because we're afraid (like them) that the wrong people are going to get the wrong idea. Worry about the right people getting the right idea more! Feed them this stuff. Stuff them with it! One-third of Romans is this stuff. It's not merely doctrinally interesting but it is the _basis_ for the ethics.

3. I love this point that Dr. Clark cited:


> 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
> 
> Yes, for since they belong to the covenant and people of God as well as their parents, and since redemption from sin through the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as the sign of the Covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is instituted.


See, again, the problem I see is that it is the Baptists who presume too much. You guys presume, by your profession, that you're elect and so you turn a wary eye toward the young'uns who haven't. First, you shouldn't be presuming upon your profession. Second, you should be seeing that everyone visible in your midst needs the kind of Grace I was just talking about.

You worry too much about the bad apples and you punish the whole crowd. You can't figure out who to punish so you punish every child calling him unregenerate while claiming regeneracy for the adults. Where does such presumption come from? I'm not saying not to tell kids to repent but tell adults to repent too. Tell everyone to repent where Paul does. The Gospel is bouncing off the walls of your Church as you proclaim it to man, woman, and child. Stop worrying about who is elect among you and deal with the visible assembly in your midst. Let the Holy Spirit do its work but don't preach with one arm tied behind your back. Preach the whole counsel of God and where it says "repent" tell everyone and where it says "rejoice" then proclaim it as the Word does. And let God sort out the rest.

Don't even destroy the simplicity of the Gospel by demanding that solid, intellectual assurance that you want all adults to express. If a brother is struggling with assurance don't impoverish him with "try harder" to determine if you're elect. Focus him upon the Cross. Tell him that it's as simple as believing. Do you believe Christ died for sin? Do you believe Christ raised Him from the dead? Believe! Proclaim Romans 8 to him. If he's reprobate then that's his problem but if he's elect then let it feed him and establish him!

But stop impoverishing the flock by playing to the fear of the lowest common denominator.


----------



## Herald (Aug 25, 2007)

> 1. Baptists keep talking about an overarching presumption that, in telling children they are in the New Covenant, they can "rest on their laurels". It's like we're saying: "Son, presume you are Elect and you have nothing to go to God for and say: 'Save Me!'"



Rich - which Baptists? Doug and I have made the majority Baptist posts in this thread. Illumine me where Doug or I have given this impression.



> Yet, if you go back and read even portions of this thread we have people arguing that we should have people telling the Church: "Oh, I'm elect, the Holy Spirit told me so".



See my previous comment.



> Sadly, I feel a sense in which you are missing the very power and weight of the Gospel to convert. Romans 6 is part of the Gospel by the way.



I don't mean to seem snide, but yes Rich, I know that Romans 6 is part of the gospel. I don't how you can make this comment. In your last post you haven't quoted from one Baptist in this thread, yet your drawing conclusions that impugn all Baptists. Now you're telling me that we are missing the power and weight of the Gospel to convert. 



> It is my conviction that passages like Romans 6 can actually convert the soul.



I agree. If you listen to my upcoming two messages on Romans 6 you will see just that. 

How often do I come at you Rich? You only see this side of me when I feel it is warranted. I'm getting the impression that you are reminding Baptists of the gospel content of Romans 6 because you think we either don't know that or proclaim it without power.



> Even as we sneer at Roman Catholics who say: "Don't teach that kind of stuff because it's a license for liberty", we don't preach it openly because we're afraid (like them) that the wrong people are going to get the wrong idea. Worry about the right people getting the right idea more! Feed them this stuff. Stuff them with it! One-third of Romans is this stuff. It's not merely doctrinally interesting but it is the basis for the ethics.



If you were to sit in our sanctuary and listen to the gospel being proclaimed you would hear them being stuffed! You would hear the sheep being fed with the words that lead to life. What is it that you think we're feeding them?



> you should be seeing that everyone visible in your midst needs the kind of Grace I was just talking about.



I'll skip the few sentences before this quote because they are in keeping with your disputation about Baptist practice to begin with. But your above quote is, once again, based on a false assumption. We preach the gospel that converts souls and equips saints for the purpose of godliness. We see salvation as an ongoing process that is begun by God, maintained by God and eternally sustained by God; and it is all by grace. That is what we preach at our church.



> You worry too much about the bad apples and you punish the whole crowd. You can't figure out who to punish so you punish every child calling him unregenerate while claiming regeneracy for the adults. Where does such presumption come from? I'm not saying not to tell kids to repent but tell adults to repent too. Tell everyone to repent where Paul does. The Gospel is bouncing off the walls of your Church as you proclaim it to man, woman, and child. Stop worrying about who is elect among you and deal with the visible assembly in your midst. Let the Holy Spirit do its work but don't preach with one arm tied behind your back. Preach the whole counsel of God and where it says "repent" tell everyone and where it says "rejoice" then proclaim it as the Word does. And let God sort out the rest.
> 
> Don't even destroy the simplicity of the Gospel by demanding that solid, intellectual assurance that you want all adults to express. If a brother is struggling with assurance don't impoverish him with "try harder" to determine if you're elect. Focus him upon the Cross. Tell him that it's as simple as believing. Do you believe Christ died for sin? Do you believe Christ raised Him from the dead? Believe! Proclaim Romans 8 to him. If he's reprobate then that's his problem but if he's elect then let it feed him and establish him!
> 
> But stop impoverishing the flock by playing to the fear of the lowest common denominator.



Rich - who are you talking to? Doug? Me? Baptists in general? I suppose I am a bit defensive in my reply, but I have reason to be. You're lumping my church into your caricature and I believe you are off by a wide margin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 25, 2007)

Bill,

I think you need to take the position as a whole and not parse the issue and take it personally. I had to sum up a lot of people's thoughts. I was unspecific because I wasn't aiming it at *a* Baptist but a line of thinking that begins with the assumption that NC=elect -> Profession which necessarily excludes those who are too young to profess in a mature fashion.

There is then an underlying assumption that if you treat the immature as if they are spiritually minded that it will lead to _presumption_ and that it is _deceptive_ to teach them anything other than the condemnation of the Law. I repeatedly hear from Baptists (in general) that the _only_ status that children have is that they are in Adam and unregenerate. They claim this on the basis of the child's profession. Conversely, those that are professors are presumed (too much I think) to be regenerate on the basis of profession. There is an unhealthy mix of presumption about regeneration for professors and unregeneration for non-professing (young) members.

I wasn't denying you believed all about Romans 6 and the Gospel in general. Please forgive me as I can understand how some of it came off as patronizing. I'm sorry to you and other Baptists if I sounded pejorative or condescending. I was trying to connect to the underlying concern in the OP, pull together some disparate posts, and draw it all out. I wanted to move from our common base of understanding regarding the Gospel and move to how the manner of Baptism and the way you talk about visible members actually undermines the program of the Gospel. In some aspects it is meant to sting (in a loving way) to get some to understand why the Reformed paedo baptizes into _discipleship_ and not to declare of a person - this one is elect and this one is not.

The shoe fits for some or all aspects better than others, but credo-Baptism as an overarching system, in the way it treats the young - presuming them to be unregenerate - witholds an aspect of the Gospel from them. That witholding of the Gospel to the young is of the nature of Romans 6. It assumes that the _only_ thing a child needs to hear is that they need to repent of their sins. On the other hand, it might see that adult professors don't need to hear as much about repentance of sins (because after all they've professed). My view is that ALL in the visible Church need the full orbed presentation - professors or too immature to profess. The full presentation will mature and convert babes and the full presentation will mature and convert adults.

In the end, where the shoe fits, wear it. Your frustration is mine. As I stated in another thread, the Baptist view is very eclectic (even though you guys are all supposed to be 1689 LBCF) and some argue in different ways. I'm sorry that you feel slighted when I have to refer to a strain of Baptist thinking that is, in the main, representative of the issue. Conversely, Reformed paedobaptists are pretty monlithic in the understanding of the issue. Regardless of the aspects that you believe fit tightly or not, you have to answer for the reasons why you don't baptize the young and why you believe profession alone is the arbiter of when discipleship begins. The difficulty in nailing down where Baptists fall on these issues communicates to confusion in the pews and why, when a Baptist calls up Pastor Gene Cook on the Narrow Mind he has no idea how he can possibly train his child in the fear and admonition of the Lord without training the child to obey the Law as a Pharisee might vice a motivation that focuses on love for God (Romans 6).


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 25, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I repeatedly hear from Baptists (in general) that the _only_ status that children have is that they are in Adam and unregenerate. They claim this on the basis of the child's profession.



Rich, when you and other paedos make this kind of statement it really concerns me. It is as if you think that your children pop out already regenerate. The *are* unregenerate and in Adam. If you tell them that they are already God's children, what need is there for them to repent.

I know that I am presenting a false dichotomy here because all of life is repentance and faith. So that would probably be your response. But understand that we teach them the same thing. We do not say that they are already in covenant, but we teach them repentance and faith. We teach them the Gospel. We teach them the benefits of the gospel like Romans 6, which my family happens to be starting in our before-dinner reading. We teach them what it means to be united to Christ. We teach them that, by the grace of Almighty God, they have been put in a believing family so that they can hear and believe these things.

I simply don't see how making them wait to be baptized until after they grasp and have responded to the Gospel with repentance and faith would change that. We don't walk around telling our kids that they since they are unregenerate they have no interest in God. We treat them as if they are in need of the gospel, which they are.




> Conversely, those that are professors are presumed (too much I think) to be regenerate on the basis of profession.



But, we follow the biblical pattern. Believe and be baptized is what you see throughout the NT. So, we do it that way. If an adult makes a profession, we baptize them. Do we "presume" that they are regenerate? I would say the early church did, but also had a healthy church discipline that would eventually separate the wheat from the chaff. Baptists churches have failed to uphold that discipline. So, most modern Baptists (those that don't hold to 1689) probably do presume too much. I don't know that the case can be made against healthy churches practicing church discipline.



> There is an unhealthy mix of presumption about regeneration for professors and unregeneration for non-professing (young) members.



I don't see how paedos get around this, though. You guys keep young non-professing members from Communion because you don't think they are regenerate yet while at the same time allowing adult professors to the table. You assume the same thing about children that we do. They haven't yet been brought to repentance and faith, so they can't partake of communion.



> In some aspects it is meant to sting (in a loving way) to get some to understand why the Reformed paedo baptizes into _discipleship_ and not to declare of a person - this one is elect and this one is not.



It is highly possible that we need (as Baptists) to review the way we speak of Baptism. If we spoke of it as an entry point to the life of discipleship more than a validation of their regeneration, it might not be that bad.



> My view is that ALL in the visible Church need the full orbed presentation - professors or too immature to profess. The full presentation will mature and convert babes and the full presentation will mature and convert adults.



I agree and fail to see how withholding baptism from those who haven't in any way responded to the full presentation is against the pattern of the Bible.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 25, 2007)

I'm sorry, this post does not follow the train of this thread, but goes back to the beginning.

This text needs attention:


> 1 Thessalonians 1:2-4
> We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers, remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. in the sight of God and our Father; For we *know*, brothers loved by God, that he has *elected *you,


Does Paul mean he can see the believer's individual, invisible nature? Of course not. This is a charitable judgment. But it is also an evidential assessment, based on their reception of the gospel, and a doctrinal conclusion.


> 1 Thessalonians 1:5-10
> because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.


So I say, yes, you can speak of or to the assembled church as "elect", while knowing that it is likely there are a few present who are not. I also think you can say to a person who asks, "Am I elect?" "Sure, you are elect, IF you believed the gospel. Election preceded your conversion, and was not based upon it. Therefore, if the latter be true, so is the former."


----------



## Herald (Aug 25, 2007)

Bruce - if that was a polemic of the sureness of election, I concur.


----------



## Herald (Aug 25, 2007)

Rich - I admit that I did take your last post personal and reacted defensively. I apologize for allowing my blood to boil and not counting to 10 before responding. I understand that you view baptism as a means of comfort for a believer. They can point back to their baptism and have confidence. From that flows your passion for the paedo position. I appreciate that. I honestly do. I also understand that Baptists, even confessional Baptists, have been all over the map in regards to baptism and the New Covenant. Part of this is the independent nature of being a Baptist. There are some Baptist churches that are more confessional than others and would not be worthy recipients, _in toto_, of the accusations in your last post. 

As usual the systemic differences between credos and paedos remain. That's the interesting conclusion to all of these baptism and NC posts. They almost always wind up with the same end. Not that it is enough to stop us from bringing it up again...and again...and again. Nature of the beast I guess.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 25, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm sorry, this post does not follow the train of this thread, but goes back to the beginning.
> 
> This text needs attention:
> 
> ...



To this I agree. It's like preaching Romans 6 to them. My only point was that it's not because we have more confidence that one baptized member is regenerate and another is unregenerate that we preach in one way to some and don't to others in the visible Church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 25, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > I repeatedly hear from Baptists (in general) that the _only_ status that children have is that they are in Adam and unregenerate. They claim this on the basis of the child's profession.
> ...


Fascinating again how you say they _are_ unregenerate when born. They might be but you do not know this. God does not reveal this of our children. He reveals only that a man must be born again to embrace the Gospel but, like the wind blows, doesn't tell us when. For you to pronounce: These are surely unregenerate is highly presumptuous given that we have Biblical data of believers regenerate in the womb.

I'm not even saying that you cannot say, broadly and with some confidence as Bruce noted, that professors in your Church are regenerated but you are making that claim too confidently in the contrast to how you are declaring surely that the intellectually immature are not regenerate. It almost seems as if you equate God's ability to regenerate with a child's ability to form thoughts and express them.

Do your small children love you? How do you know, when they are adults, they will not rebel against you when they have to decide to love you with an intellectual capacity informed by the costs of love? Perhaps you ought to withold present confidence about the love of your children for you until they are old enough to express it in a way that is intellectually suitable. Thus, at the moment, I would hold off on answering that question until you are certain of the answer.




> > Conversely, those that are professors are presumed (too much I think) to be regenerate on the basis of profession.
> 
> 
> 
> But, we follow the biblical pattern. Believe and be baptized is what you see throughout the NT. So, we do it that way. If an adult makes a profession, we baptize them. Do we "presume" that they are regenerate? I would say the early church did, but also had a healthy church discipline that would eventually separate the wheat from the chaff. Baptists churches have failed to uphold that discipline. So, most modern Baptists (those that don't hold to 1689) probably do presume too much. I don't know that the case can be made against healthy churches practicing church discipline.


Again, though, I don't disagree with discipline but I do disagree with _pre_-discipline - that is saying a person is out before they've rebelled. The fact is that your children _are_ disciples. I even found it fascinating that Randy acknowledged that everyone has a responsiblity to disciple their children. Baptist Churches seem to even take on a sense of responsibility for that. Yet they don't really do it formally, just informally. They treat them in every way like they are disciples but simply won't call them that until they've gotten to a certain grade. As I said before, it's like saying my child isn't a student until he can read on his own. My Pastor won't admit it but the fact that he has a little "Children's Church" moment with the kids, gives them a little sermon, and then prays with them is a perfect demonstration how Baptists will treat their kids in every way like disciples but prepare to be caned if you actually call them that before they profess! 



> I don't see how paedos get around this, though. You guys keep young non-professing members from Communion because you don't think they are regenerate yet while at the same time allowing adult professors to the table. You assume the same thing about children that we do. They haven't yet been brought to repentance and faith, so they can't partake of communion.


Communion, like the Passover, is for the mature disciple - the one who can grasp the nature of the Table. Simply because I do not teach my five year old Algebra does not follow that I do not consider him a student. The Table is for worthy recipients. Even adult disciples are sometimes barred (for differing reasons) but they do not cease being disciples in every case.



> > My view is that ALL in the visible Church need the full orbed presentation - professors or too immature to profess. The full presentation will mature and convert babes and the full presentation will mature and convert adults.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and fail to see how withholding baptism from those who haven't in any way responded to the full presentation is against the pattern of the Bible.


It's a matter of recognition and expectation. If children are strap hangers in terms of Covenant obligation to God then there's not really a sense in which you can enjoin a child to do something on the basis of love for Christ. That would be _presumptuous_ in your estimation. Conversely, when I discipline my child, I discipline him as a _Christian_, pray with him, and have him understand that sin grieves His heavenly Father. I could not train him to think as a Christian now if I did not do so and, were I to wait, I would miss formative years of development getting the ideas of sin, repentance, and pleasing God in light of Christ into his bloodstream.


----------

