# Contemporary Reformed view of children in the Covenant



## Nate (Mar 17, 2014)

While reading David Engelsma's _The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers_, I have come across a number of quotes along these lines:



> Some Reformed churches state this view of the little children of godly parents forthrightly: "All children are unregenerated and unsaved until they experience conversion, usually much later in life." A recent book on infant baptism, _The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism_, makes plain that this grim view of baptiezd children is the majority opinion in Reformed and Presbyterian churches. The contributors represent a wide spectrum of Reformed and Presbyterian churches. Almost all of the writers teach that the baptized infants of godly parents are merely outwardly in the covenant. They are not saved, are not to be viewed as saved, and are not to be reared as saved. The covenant promise of God and the covenant sign and seal merely put them in a favorable position to be saved by their own act of conversion at a later time.



and



> The prevailing view forbids believing parents to view their children as regenerated... Often, the prevailing view denies that eternal election determines the salvation of the children of believing parents in the covenant. The prevailing doctrine strongly objects to the parents' allowing election to form their view of, and approach to, their children.



He is making the claim that this is was the prevailing view view within Reformed and Presbyterian churches in 2005. Can anyone speak as to whether this is currently the prevailing view in Reformed and Presbyterian churches in the US?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 17, 2014)

My mind immediately boggles at these quotes. I do not think anyone could hold these views and subscribe to the Westminster standards. No one who believes such things would have been admitted to office in the PCA churches and OPC church where I have been a member.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Mar 17, 2014)




----------



## Hamalas (Mar 17, 2014)

Is he just talking about presumptive regeneration here?


----------



## Nate (Mar 17, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> Is he just talking about presumptive regeneration here?



No, he is not discussing presumptive regeneration in this section. His point is that the majority of Reformed and Presbyterian churches view their children as in a formal, outward covenant with God, which is not the same covenant that is enjoyed by mature Christians; the children must fulfill conditions in order to acquire salvation and gain admittance into the covenant that their parents enjoy.


----------



## yeutter (Mar 17, 2014)

I encountered this in the OPC. They said we could and should baptize out children and pray with our children because they were in the covenant. Then they would turn around and say that we do not do this because they were in any sense presumed to be regenerate. The covenant children must still be led to the Lord; not nurtured in their faith but led to the Lord. My Canadian Reformed friends seem to be saying something close to this as well; but they phrase it differently so I am not sure if this is the Canadian Reformed position.


----------



## Afterthought (Mar 17, 2014)

This thread reminds me of this article I found on historical changes to American Presbyterian views of the covenant and children in it: Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Edit:


yeutter said:


> I encountered this in the OPC. They said we could and should baptize out children and pray with our children because they were in the covenant. Then they would turn around and say that we do not do this because they were in any sense presumed to be regenerate. The covenant children must still be led to the Lord; not nurtured in their faith but led to the Lord.


I too have encountered the first in the OPC. I'm still working on understanding the positions of those with whom I am in contact, so I cannot determine whether these whom I know hold to the second or third (I'm fairly sure they would affirm the second), but when the topic of infants dying in infancy came up once some months ago, I found hesitation to affirm anything (in terms of comfort and hope) more than that God will do what is right and that elect infants dying in infancy are saved by Christ.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Mar 17, 2014)

yeutter said:


> I encountered this in the OPC. They said we could and should baptize out children and pray with our children because they were in the covenant. Then they would turn around and say that we do not do this because they were in any sense presumed to be regenerate. The covenant children must still be led to the Lord; not nurtured in their faith but led to the Lord. My Canadian Reformed friends seem to be saying something close to this as well; but they phrase it differently so I am not sure if this is the Canadian Reformed position.



Most, if not almost all, Canadian Reformed people would be uncomfortable with the language of children being only "outwardly" in the covenant. The distinction between outward and inward ways of being in the covenant is not one that has found traction in our churches. We would say that the covenant of grace is established with believers and their children. Covenant promises are extended to all covenant children, but these promises must be accepted through faith. Without faith (at the age of accountability, whatever that might be in each individual circumstance), covenant membership testifies against covenant children.


----------



## yeutter (Mar 18, 2014)

Guido's Brother said:


> Most, if not almost all, Canadian Reformed people would be uncomfortable with the language of children being only "outwardly" in the covenant. The distinction between outward and inward ways of being in the covenant is not one that has found traction in our churches. We would say that the covenant of grace is established with believers and their children. Covenant promises are extended to all covenant children, but these promises must be accepted through faith. Without faith (at the age of accountability, whatever that might be in each individual circumstance), covenant membership testifies against covenant children.


Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 18, 2014)

I treat church kids as if they are believers. They're in the church and they're being discipled. How could I speak to them as if they aren't God's children? You can't disciple a person while simultaneously treating him as if he's still an enemy of God whom God is planning to destroy rather than helping to grow. You just can't. That would be discipleship that doesn't draw on grace—a terribly wrong idea.

However, despite treating church kids as believers, I know very well that conversion is necessary and that in God's good plan it often doesn't happen as early in a child's life as we might like. So I realize that some of the kids I treat as believers might not actually be believers yet. It that sense, I don't presume them to be believers and I tell all of them they need to believe in Christ—whether for the first time or in the ongoing way that believers do for a lifetime.

What I've described, rather than the view you cited, is what I would consider to be the prevailing Presbyterian/Reformed view given what I've seen. But I can see how what you cited might be gaining ground. When I speak with parents and children's ministry workers in the wider evangelical world, I often find them confused. Although they treat church kids as disciples, they also tend to state that those kids ought to be regarded as unsaved until they take some act of conversion. It makes for a somewhat schizophrenic approach to training young disciples, in my opinion.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## JackSparrow (Mar 18, 2014)

Maybe I had my understanding backwards, but I was assuming the OP's quote was in line with paedobaptist Covenant Theology. Since, in this view, the church is made up of unregenerate covenant members and the elect covenant members, you will always have covenant members who are not believers. This is the visible church / invisible church distinction is it not? My understanding was that you would not need to doubt your baptized infant was in the covenant, but time would tell if the child will actually believe when they come of age. Am I off here?

Of note from what I've learned around here from my Free Reformed Dutch friends, is that the Christian Reformed Churches in Canada MAY lean towards presumptive regeneration, while the Free / Heritage / and Netherlands reformed churches do not. Their view, from what I've been told, was similar to the quote that kicked off this thread.

An interesting note I saw in the Cannons of Dort may be the source of the disagreements between different Dutch church groups. I believe its Article 17 of the first point of Doctrine. That may rise an eyebrow or two in light of this discussion.

I ask for forgiveness if I have mis-spoken or confused any one church's view. If im in error I'd appreciate some alternative views.

Sent from my RM-915_nam_canada_219 using Tapatalk


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 18, 2014)

A parent, church member or elder doesn't know whether a particular baby brought for baptism is regenerate or unregenerate. How could they, when we have examples like John the Baptist? Rather than presuming regeneration or presuming unbelief, a degree of agnosticm would be warranted.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 18, 2014)

Wouldn't the rejection of this view lead to paedocommunion?


----------



## littlepeople (Mar 18, 2014)

The only experience I have is of southern PCA churches, and I think it probably is the majority view down here. Many of our pews were filled by southern baptist refugees, and I'm guessing that's a factor. I know I get strange looks when I refer to my children as Christians. You will often hear that "Johnny joined the church today" - when Johnny makes a public profession of faith.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 18, 2014)

I admit that as a Baptist, every person of Presbyterian bent that I have spoken with has explained that things are as described in the OP.

Could this viewpoint perhaps be a reaction to the Federal Vision?

Just curious.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 18, 2014)

littlepeople said:


> The only experience I have is of southern PCA churches, and I think it probably is the majority view down here. Many of our pews were filled by southern baptist refugees, and I'm guessing that's a factor. I know I get strange looks when I refer to my children as Christians. You will often hear that "Johnny joined the church today" - when Johnny makes a public profession of faith.



There are two senses in which the word "member" is used in Presbyterianism. The WCF affirms that baptism visibly and solemnly admits you to the membership of the visible church I.e. you become a non-communicant member. But the acts of the denomination e.g. the "Blue Book" of the Free Church, speak of communicants as being members in full communion with the denomination, while others who attend the church without being communicant members are often referred to as "adherents", while some of those adherents may yet be members of the visible church.

Also, a person may be a Christian, in the sense of being part of the Visible Church and in the administration of the CoG, and yet not be regenerate.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JP Wallace (Mar 18, 2014)

Far be it for me to say much of this matter, but I have just read James Bannerman on this subject in 'The Church of Christ'. A few quotations which may help the discussion along. These quotes show that a) there has been no agreement reached on this matter among covenant theologians, b) that this discussion is not new or 21st century, and c) is not a result of a conservative swing against FV, for it predates it.

"Baptism as a sign of membership and the passport to the infant into the sanctuary of the visible church, does not bestow the saving blessing, but brings him in after life into contact with the blessing. It does not constitute him a member of the kingdom of heaven, but brings him to the very door, and bids him there knock and it shall be opened to him."

Furthermore under a subsequent heading where he writes of how Baptism "gives [the infant] a right of properity in the Covenant of Grace; which may in after life, by means of personal faith be supplemented by a right of possession',

"The benefits of baptism in the case of infants are not fully experienced by them until in after years they to Baptism their personal faith, thereby really making out to a complete title not only to the property but also to a possession of salvation."

It would seem to me that Bannerman would be more on the side Engelsma is writing against.

Moving on to a more modern writer, David McKay in "The Bond of Love" explains that "Among covenant theologians there has been a range of views as to how covenant children should be regarded." Some such as John Murray state 'Baptized infants are to be received as the children of God and treated accordingly.' Other such as Thornwell and Dabney, and William Cunningham disagree and McKay quotes Cunningham thus "neither parents not children, when the children come to be proper subjects of instruction, show regard the fact that they have been baptized, as affording of itself even the slightest presumption that they have been regenerated.....nothing should ever be regarded as furnishing any evidence of regeneration, except the appripriate proofs of an actual renovation of moral nature, exibited in each case individually.'

McKay himself states his own position,

' Without in any way minimizing the encouragement which the covenant promises give to believing parents, it seems to us tha tthe covenant gives no ground for presumption regarding covenant children. They must be told that God has put the sign of the covenant on them and so they should be His and ought to respond to the call of the Gospel and the demands of the covenant. The need for the new birth must be impressed lovingly upon them, as Jesus impressed it upon Nicodemus, and their responsibilities as well as their privileges must be made clear to them. The great privileges which they have within the fellowship of the covenant community make their responsibilities all the greater."

Back to Bannerman,

"And in the case of infants, the Sacrament cannot be regarded as accomplishing without their faith, what in the case of adults with their faith it fails to accomplish." He explains that in adults baptism neither justifies nor regenerates, even with stated faith, but is a sign and seal of both. Neither does it do either of these in the infant where there can be no stated faith.


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 18, 2014)

JP Wallace said:


> Far be it for me to say much of this matter, but I have just read James Bannerman on this subject in 'The Church of Christ'. A few quotations which may help the discussion along. These quotes show that a) there has been no agreement reached on this matter among covenant theologians, b) that this discussion is not new or 21st century, and c) is not a result of a conservative swing against FV, for it predates it.
> 
> "Baptism as a sign of membership and the passport to the infant into the sanctuary of the visible church, does not bestow the saving blessing, but brings him in after life into contact with the blessing. It does not constitute him a member of the kingdom of heaven, but brings him to the very door, and bids him there knock and it shall be opened to him."
> 
> ...



I remember Joel Beeke writing pretty strongly against the view of Engelsema in one of his books and arguing more for the perspective suggested in the above quotes. I'll have to see if I can dig up the reference.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 19, 2014)

I found this thread somewhat distressing. It's not hard to imagine a Baptist influence in churches in the south nor is it difficult to see people visiting a church and drawing incorrect conclusions. When errors occur, generally they are along the lines of presumptive regeneration (hey, the kid's in the church, everything is A-OK with him and God!) or to take preaching _against_ presumptive regeneration to mean that the child is viewed as unsaved until proven otherwise.

At a baptism in our church, we almost always hear a reminder along the lines that water is seen in scripture as a blessing or a curse. God delivered his people _through_ the waters of the Red Sea and used the same waters to curse and destroy the pursuing Egyptians. A child is blessed through the means of grace given in baptism, but not showing faith as he matures affirms the rightful condemnation against one who has been so warned. 

Like the puritans, I warn my children that they have no guarantee that they will live another day or even another minute. They must stand ready to face their God. But I would never dream of seeing them as anything less than full covenant children and would be distressed at going to a church that teaches otherwise. If they sass off (as kids generally try to do at least once) that they will believe what they want, I tell them: you don't have a choice. God has _commanded_ you to put your trust in Christ alone. I tell them that _I_ have no choice but to press them on in the faith and to fulfill the vows of baptism that we will teach them and pray with and for them.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 19, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> ...I tell them: you don't have a choice. God has _commanded_ you to put your trust in Christ alone.



Please bear with me in patience, but how would respond if a Baptist like me asked "how is that any different from anyone anywhere in the world, baptized or not"?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 19, 2014)

A baptized person's obligation is greater than the unbaptized, even as his privilege is greater.


----------



## JackSparrow (Mar 19, 2014)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> > ...I tell them: you don't have a choice. God has _commanded_ you to put your trust in Christ alone.
> ...





Contra_Mundum said:


> A baptized person's obligation is greater than the unbaptized, even as his privilege is greater.



Was hoping to keep my powder dry on this one as I'm still researching and writing about it, but I think this exchange beautifully shows one of the key differences between Paedo and Credo Baptist positions. I'm curious if I'm on to something here, and I'm hoping this will all get fleshed out in this thread, because it's no minor point.

From a Baptist perspective, I believe the issue is we do not see any benefit to being in the external Covenant of Grace. It is said that there are benefits, but I don't think we see any clear distinction between a practical benefit between a person born outside of a church, and a person born in, and baptized in the church as an infant. People not born in the church can be elect or not elect, and people in the church can be elect or not elect. Sadly, we can't keep statistics on this kind of thing. The elect get the only real benefit that matters, which is, eternal life through Christ, while the non-elect would receive eternal damnation. 

Bear with me, I'm still learning this. I've heard it said that if you are baptized into the visible church as an infant, the benefit you receive is growing up under the instruction of the church, and hearing the Gospel early in your life. But to me, this seems to imply growing up in the church gives you a better "chance" of receiving salvation... which we know cannot be the case, as it is God's sovereign choice, and has nothing to do with how early, or how often we hear the Gospel. Along the same lines, if the person is not elect, but baptized into the church however, then those "benefits" profit them nothing. In the LBCF, the elect are the covenant members, and there is no notion of "external benefits". It is my contention this is one of the major things dividing us from our paedobaptist brothers and sisters. I hope this is a fair response, and I hope I didn't hijack the thread. 

Am I on to something here? does anyone else see this might be one of the major dividing lines? I hope I'm representing everyone fairly, sadly, I have to run and haven't had time to write this up well.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 19, 2014)

> Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words,and prevail when you are judged. (Romans 3:1-4)



You baptists are similar to some of the people the Apostle Paul had to deal with; collapsing everything into the hidden things of God, about which we know nothing, apart from the fact that we can know ourselves to be elect.

Does the faithlessness of many covenant children, some admitted solemnly and visibly to the covenant by baptism, some not, nullify the faithfulness of God?


----------



## MW (Mar 19, 2014)

The advantage is not merely "rational" in the sense that the child has access to the oracles of God, but "relational," being addressed by the oracles as those in covenant with God. They are brought up in covenant consciousness, taught in the Shorter Catechism to believe in Christ as their prophet, priest, and king, and to pray, though Christ, "our Father." This is the true "form" of religion of which the Scripture speaks. They are constantly exhorted to personal repentance, faith, love, obedience, and perseverance, with the understanding that it is God's prerogative to grant these and thereby impart the "spirit" of true religion to them.


----------



## Loopie (Mar 19, 2014)

Peairtach said:


> You baptists are similar to some of the people the Apostle Paul had to deal with; collapsing everything into the hidden things of God, about which we know nothing, apart from the fact that we can know ourselves to be elect.
> 
> Does the faithlessness of many covenant children, some admitted solemnly and visibly to the covenant by baptism, some not, nullify the faithfulness of God?



What do you mean "you Baptists"?  

Anyways, a lot of the discussion comes down to one's view of covenantal relationships, particularly the nature of the New Covenant, its membership, and its benefits. I believe that children of believers are not covenant members, but they do receive the benefits of growing up under Christian parents, hearing the gospel daily, and seeing first hand the love of Christ in their parents. It is not that much different than unbelievers receiving benefits for living in a Christian society. They get to enjoy peace, love of neighbor, honest government, and morality within the society. If I were to bring a stranger into my home to live with me for a while, they would definitely have more benefits than if they were to live in a broken home that was stricken with violence, anger, and abuse.

Ultimately, when I 'treat' someone as a believer (and therefore encourage baptism), I actually am thinking in my mind that they are regenerate. Of course, I don't know that for sure, but I treat them as if they actually were regenerate. That is why I do not treat my children as regenerate until they demonstrate a confession of faith or repentance from sin. I would not treat them, or anyone, as regenerate unless I think it were actually possible that they were regenerate. I do not believe anyone could be regenerate simply because their parents were. Regeneration comes from the Holy Spirit through the hearing of the gospel. Of course, I do believe that young children can hear the gospel and be made regenerate by the Holy Spirit. But I am not going to assume anything until a credible profession of faith and/or fruit of repentance is evident. I hold everyone to the same standard, whether they are my children or are my young cousins who come to visit.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 19, 2014)

> What do you mean "you Baptists"?



Sorry. Our estranged and strange brethren


----------



## littlepeople (Mar 19, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> The advantage is not merely "rational" in the sense that the child has access to the oracles of God, but "relational," being addressed by the oracles as those in covenant with God.



+1


----------



## Nate (Mar 19, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> I remember Joel Beeke writing pretty strongly against the view of Engelsema in one of his books and arguing more for the perspective suggested in the above quotes. I'll have to see if I can dig up the reference.



Beeke argues against Englesma's position here: Letters | Standard Bearer. 

Englesma's responses here: 
The Approach to Covenant Children (1)
The Approach to Covenant Children (2)
The Approach to Covenant Children (3)
The Approach to Covenant Children (4)
The Approach to Covenant Children (5)
The Approach to Covenant Children (6)

Engelsma's responses form one chapter of his book from the OP that I am reading.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 20, 2014)

JackSparrow said:


> From a Baptist perspective, I believe the issue is we do not see any benefit to being in the external Covenant of Grace. It is said that there are benefits, but I don't think we see any clear distinction between a practical benefit between a person born outside of a church, and a person born in, and baptized in the church as an infant. People not born in the church can be elect or not elect, and people in the church can be elect or not elect. Sadly, we can't keep statistics on this kind of thing. The elect get the only real benefit that matters, which is, eternal life through Christ, while the non-elect would receive eternal damnation.


Michael,
You "do not see any benefit to being in the external Covenant of Grace." And yet I perceive you as a brother in the only possible way I believe you can present yourself to me: externally (outwardly) as being in the Covenant of Grace. I've had Baptists tell me the Covenant of Grace has NO external administration, therefore the church in the earth is most certainly NOT the realm of external administration. But I don't think about the church (in any sense) separate from Christ's covenant provision.

I am a member of the "external covenant of Grace." I see considerable benefit to being externally in the Covenant of Grace. Here is where I answer the Lord's summons, and draw near to him with his people (all externally identified) in corporate prayer. Here is where I have Christ presented to me for my salvation through the right preaching of the Word (externally delivered) and the right administration of the sacraments (sensibly received). Here I am shepherded through Christ's visible officers, being supported, exercised, and disciplined unto godliness by these men. The external Covenant of Grace is where the gospel of Jesus Christ meets me, the body/soul individual.

Now, perhaps you will reply that the above are all benefits you enjoy as someone in the Covenant of Grace _internally._ Well, neither do I think I could actually enjoy eternal fruition of those benefits apart from faith that unites me to the Covenant of Grace internally. And I hope you can at least grasp (though not sharing the sentiment) how I cannot really see myself enjoying internally and spiritually the benefits of the Covenant apart from their means of external delivery or administration.

What about the infant? Let me see... from my side (of paedo-vs-credo): Here is where he is brought near in answer to the Lord's summons with the rest of those externally identified to learn to pray (from the heart) as Christians do. Here is where Christ in Word and sacrament is presented to him, to be received by faith for his salvation--first upon the skin in baptism; next and primarily at the ear-gate opening to the mind and heart; then at the eye gate in observing all we do; and lastly through communion when mature discernment is found in him, at the nose and at the mouth by which confession is made unto salvation, Rom.10:10. Here is where he is shepherded through Christ's visible officers, being supported, exercised, and disciplined unto godliness (not without his parental overseers). The external Covenant of Grace is where the gospel of Jesus Christ meets this law-condemned sinner, and offers him salvation.

You may perhaps reply that you do... most of that anyway, but without calling it the Covenant of Grace in any external administration toward him, and not that order. The infant has no *privileges* respecting any of those benefits, no _rights_; election is a crapshoot. This is not a covenant to be engaged otherwise than until he has volunteered for Christ's service. An "enlistment" is the moment that marks a change-of-allegiance for him, and baptism is the oath. Not that such a choice for Christ (or such a baptism) has any kind of reliable correlation to the divine choice (election)...

Anyway, those benefits certainly seem to me like privileges for him, no different than as the same are privileges for me, or for you. I can't detect any objective difference in the quality of what is offered to him or to me every Lord's Day especially. He (and I) is (are) better off than that guy down the road who's missing out on what's being offered at our church this Sunday (the gospel). He (and I) is (are) better off than the man who only has had an occasional evangelistic message rattle his comfort zone. Because God caused his Providential birth in a believer's house, he has sheltered and encouraged him with certain privilege that another child elsewhere did not receive (nor was due). Such privilege entails more obligation than those without. Greater obligation spurned incurs greater condemnation.

I'm pretty sure that because of birth-privilege, as well as attainments in knowledge, appointments to spiritual office, and many other blessings, the "doom" that looms over me is every bit as severe as the one that caused Paul to say, "Woe is me, if I preach not the gospel." He was not "disobedient to the heavenly vision," Act.26:19. I pray by God's grace I will not be disobedient to my calling. But I'm not that good a judge of my own heart, how unshakable is my own faith, or how sure is my own calling and election. The ultimate test of Election is, well... Perseverance, enduring to the end (the same shall be saved).

The vital question as I understand it is not, "When did I first believe the gospel" (and I can't remember NOT believing it), or "Did I believe the gospel when I was baptized;" but "Do I believe the gospel right now?" The infant's obligation to repent and believe is not essentially different from my obligation to repent and believe today, next Sunday, and every day for the rest of my life. Indeed, that requirement holds for every human who has ever lived or will live. And some live and die in their sin, never having so much as heard there is a Savior. They are not without excuse, but their unbelief is less culpable than that of the child who was reared on the gospel, nurtured in the fear and admonition of the Lord, benefited externally from connection with the Covenant of Grace.




JackSparrow said:


> Bear with me, I'm still learning this. I've heard it said that if you are baptized into the visible church as an infant, the benefit you receive is growing up under the instruction of the church, and hearing the Gospel early in your life. But to me, this seems to imply growing up in the church gives you a better "chance" of receiving salvation... which we know cannot be the case, as it is God's sovereign choice, and has nothing to do with how early, or how often we hear the Gospel. Along the same lines, if the person is not elect, but baptized into the church however, then those "benefits" profit them nothing. In the LBCF, the elect are the covenant members, and there is no notion of "external benefits". It is my contention this is one of the major things dividing us from our paedobaptist brothers and sisters. I hope this is a fair response, and I hope I didn't hijack the thread.


Does God employ human and ordinary means--such as gospel preaching and faithful parents--to effect his salvation in the lives of his elect? We believe God ordains both the ends and the means to the end. In such a scenario, surely it cannot be that controversial to say, based on both his promises and such empirical data as we can gather, God has so ordered this world that from a "statistical calculus" YES, indeed you have a better _chance_ of holding firm to a good confession of Jesus Christ if you were born to faithful parents, and all nourished spiritually in a faithful church.

Of course, there's not a _chance_ in the world that any of those circumstances were _chance_ to begin with.

I think it is absurd to think that God's elect are kind of "salted" into the world as if from the cosmic saltshaker, with little rhyme or reason that any human being could ever discern of the hidden purposes of God. Besides that it contemns clear and open asseverations from God himself. If the only thing a parent is attempting to do in training, catechizing, and presenting the gospel to his child is "doing as he was told by God," cut free from any genuine hope that his efforts and God's intentions run together in that mysterious collaboration of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, then all that diligence and Christian nurture is pure LAW, and without any GRACE. It has to be, if parents simply follow a given order, and aren't pursuing certain ends and having confidence in the promise.

This statement: "God's sovereign choice, ...has nothing to do with how early, or how often we hear the Gospel," is not the doctrine of Unconditional Election. God's unconditional election is his not forseeing any worth, any faith, any work, any benefit, anything unique or anything else in a man or from a man, on account of which he chooses anyone for salvation; yet God nevertheless chooses him, for no cause outside of himself, in his own secret counsels and for his own glory. It is God's sovereign choice that then ordains and orders all relevant facts and circumstances, including the circumstances of birth, and when, how early, how often, how well, and how effectual the the gospel comes, in order that a man might be saved in his ordinary calling by the Word.

I think you probably do believe most all that I have just written there, but so keen you are to establish the strength of your contention that there can be no benefits, that you have severely stumbled. You need to rethink how you might possibly reestablish your contention, because clearly though God does not choose a believer's child because he is a believer's child; still he honors his own promises by _often_ placing his elect children in other elect persons' houses.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 29, 2014)

Some relevant thoughts from an earlier thread:
I have come upon an interesting book I had in the paedobaptism section of my library, _The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant: An Historical Study of the Significance of Infant Baptism in the Presbyterian Church in America_, by Dr. Lewis Bevins Schenck (Yale Univ. Press, 1940; reprinted by Wipf and Stock, 2001). [Looking to get a link to it I see it is now published by P&R, and available.] Obviously this is not about our modern PCA, but is speaking generically of the history of the Presbyterian church in our country.

Chapter 3 is titled, “The Threat Of Revivalism To the Presbyterian Doctrine Of Children In The Covenant”. What an eye-opener this chapter is to the cause of the prevalence of baptistic views in modern evangelicalism. Although Whitefield didn’t foster it, his friend Gilbert Tennant (and family) promoted – much in the style of the later C.G. Finney – a style of evangelism that _required_ a strong emotional repentance and “experience” of salvation among all the congregations they preached in, not accepting the Presbyterian standard of children raised quietly as elect children of God from birth. This became the paradigm of spiritual life in many of the P&R communions, and many were the promoters and preachers of it, although there were defenders of the Old School (notably Chas. Hodge), who held with Calvin and his views, the WCF and other Presbyterian standards. If you didn’t have a dramatic experience of being lost in view of the Law, and salvation in view of the Savior’s grace you-ward, you were not considered regenerated. Of course infants and young children rarely fell into that class. And so the P&R began to consider their children, even though baptized, unregenerate and lost. Even though they baptized their infants, in their thinking about their children’s place in the covenant they were essentially baptistic. This revivalism mentality has indelibly marked American Christianity, and has made deep inroads into the Presbyterian and Reformed churches of our own day.

I would like to look at Calvin’s views on the subject of infants in the covenant, which I was made aware of in a new light by this reading.

Medical doctors discern that babies only a few hours old can distinguish the voice of their mothers from the voices of other women. Cannot infants likewise know the voice of their God? But more on this later.​ 
[from post #13 in http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/john-1-12-13-baptism-revisited-38633/ ]

---------

Then in post #24 I continue:
Let me ask a few rhetorical questions first: Can an infant “receive Him”, even though they have not the capacity to “believe”? 

Does an infant receive his or her mother? That is, receive her heart into his own?

Is regeneration *always* limited to adults, resulting in a profession of faith?​ 
Further in the post I examine this more closely, looking to Calvin also for help. I give the links so as not to bulk up this thread.


----------



## Grimmson (Mar 29, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> At a baptism in our church, we almost always hear a reminder along the lines that water is seen in scripture as a blessing or a curse. God delivered his people _through_ the waters of the Red Sea and used the same waters to curse and destroy the pursuing Egyptians. A child is blessed through the means of grace given in baptism, but not showing faith as he matures affirms the rightful condemnation against one who has been so warned.


I am glad to read that your church does this because out of the infant baptisms I have seen in the OPC, PCA, and PCUSA the connection to a covenant curse is not made to the parents or the congregation during or prior to the child's baptism. In fact I would say based on my own observation within these denominations it seems to be down played in general. Now people here may take offensive at that observation and say "my church does not do that," so take my observation as you wish.


----------

