# Children of Believers who are reprobate



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 6, 2011)

Hi:

If this is the wrong forum, then I apologize. Here is my question - please read it carefully:

If the parents of a child are completely negligent in bringing up their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and that child dies not ever coming to faith in Jesus Christ, then will the negligent parents be held responsible for the blood of their child?

Thanks in advance,

Rob


----------



## Grimmson (Jan 6, 2011)

I think Acts 18:6 can apply with this question. In short the answer is yes, the child’s blood in relation to the judgment of God is on your hands if you do not proclaim or teach the gospel to them. This is not to mean if an extremely young child or infant dies without understanding the Gospel that the child is sent automatically to hell due to original sin. I do think that God shows mercy to such children. It is the job of the parent to nurture the child in the faith and to some degree can be evidence against the parent being godly if it is not done, at least within the context of article 1.17 of Dort. Now if the child knowingly rejects the truth then that child’s blood is on their own hands because the parent has done their responsibility in faith. If you want me to continue or have a follow up question I would be more then happy to extend my argument, not only in regards to the parents but also the church at the child’s baptism or dedication promising to nurture the child in the faith (which in my opinion shares in that blood because of the oral covenant made to the parent and child before God).


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 6, 2011)

Hi:

Thank you, David, I concur with your conclusions. I would like to ask you whether or not you think that Ezekiel 3:17-19 has an application to this question as well?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Andres (Jan 6, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> If the parents of a child are completely negligent in bringing up their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and that child dies not ever coming to faith in Jesus Christ, then will the negligent parents be held responsible for the blood of their child?



This question seems to presume some things that would not be true. For example, if the parents of a child are Christian, then why would they not raise their child in the faith? To those who say they might not, then I would question if those parents bear the marks of true Christians. A Christian parent may not have morning and evening devotions each day, but they would at least be attending church regularly and their child would hear the gospel. 
If your question is in reference to reprobate parents, then God's wrath is already being kindled against them. Are we supposing God to add some type of "extra" punishment to them in eternity for acting like reprobates?


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 6, 2011)

We sin in many ways, by intention, by ignorance most every day.

The broader to question might be, rather, what happens when believer's sin? And perhaps are there different degrees, gradation of sin?

The Westminster Standards summarize the doctrine of Scripture to answer these questions for us.

When believer's sin, they suffer the chastisement and misery that such sin brings in this world, including a clouded fellowship, sense of isolation from their Creator. They suffer consequences but they do not lose the relationship and salvation in the end.

There is also some sort of accounting at the Judgment seat, and suffering of "loss" of some sort in the Kingdom of God (not salvation).

The biblical concept of Christ coming to judge all men, believers and unbelievers is not conscious as much in this generation.

Some sins are worse than others, by influence, number harmed, insolence, etc. A disorderly life pattern is biblically subject to church discipline.

But, it's not quite right to think of parents being held responsible if their children do not become believers. God alone can do that, despite any circumstance, including bad parenting.


----------



## Grimmson (Jan 6, 2011)

Warning: This will be a slightly long post.

I think Ezekiel 3:17-19 could be applied to parents because parents should be looked at as watchmen to deliver to their children the faithful message of the Gospel. Children by their very nature in Adam are wicked and will surely die as a result, for God says that the wicked “shall surely die” in verse 18 of the Ezekiel 3. God makes it clear that the one, Ezekiel, was to deliver a message to the wicked so that the wicked would repent. If Ezekiel failed to deliver this message then the wicked death is on the hands of Ezekiel, for not giving the message of life and warning he would have murdered the wicked, not physically but spiritually. If Ezekiel delivered the message faithfully then the blood of the wicked would not be on him. Now parents are not Old Testament prophets, nor are they clergy to give the sacraments, but they are still watchmen to care for the body and souls of children. Proverbs 22:6 is the first that comes to mind, so does Ephesians 6:4. In both of these passages we see the requirement and the reason for training children up in the Lord. We see it not only commanded in these two places to teach children the faith, but also in Psalm 78, verses 3-5 ( I have a manuscript version of a sermon that I have delivered concerning this Psalm if anyone is interested). Deuteronomy 4:9, 6:7, and 11:19 are also specific on the requirement of teaching children the faith; for this is more then an issue of legacy, but of truly life and death. Expanding the Psalm and Deuteronomy to not just the individual parent, but also to the church, for the Psalm and the book of Deuteronomy was given to Israel-the church then it is also the responsibility as a church community to teach children as well and keeping parents accountable to what is taught directly by the local church. If that accountability, within a reformed or Presbyterian context, is not in place then the church is also failing their oral covenant with that child, the parents, and God at the time of the child’s baptism (assuming one believes that they truly are covenant children). In the case of Baptist churches fault also lies with them as well, not in the fact that the child is not baptized for that another and different debate, but that they should help teach parents to teach their children in both by direct and indirect means. In other words, they should teach parents so that they can teach their children, this may include pedagogical methods, and by assisting by example by seeing how their children is taught. Another issue I will address that shows fault by the church is that pastors are not instructing parents on how they should do their family devotions/worship and the lack of accountability for such devotions either by direct contact with a pastor at church or by the pastor going on family visitations. Therefore the fault is not just with the parents alone, but also with the church as a whole. If the church finds out about the lack of time spent with teaching children would that church step up and assist the parents or place the parents under church discipline? The answer to that question is typically no; which is why I think that it is more then the parents that would be placed into judgment, but also the teachers and pastors of the church that watch over even our souls. Therefore we share in that blood. 



Andres said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > If the parents of a child are completely negligent in bringing up their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and that child dies not ever coming to faith in Jesus Christ, then will the negligent parents be held responsible for the blood of their child?
> ...



Andrew, I think the question that was raised here is a legitimate questions because it deals with the major responsibilities that parents and the church have in regards to children. In both cases as I have indicated parents and the church as a whole are failing in their responsibility towards children as shown by the number of children who leave the faith after High School or their parent’s place for one reason or another. Christianity has been for some time not a matter of faith, but of a moral social construction. In other words of law and not of faith. Granted that if a parent is truly Christian they should want to raise the child in the faith, but parents need taught these things to. How often to parents, before they are parents and after they become such, receive training by the older individuals in the church based on Titus 2:3-8? I have hardly ever seen any attempt of that in my 22 years as a Christian, regardless of domination. I do not think the issue is whether or not they are truly Christian, because only God knows the heart and who is his, but instead the role parents and children have in the church, which no offense to some in here is low. The fact that children may be going to church weekly doesn’t help much either because of the lack of gospel teaching that is even in our churches today, instead the focus in on personal transformation based on their own strength. Churches are good at teaching the law, but in relation to the Gospel I fear to say that the church is in decline of teaching the truth of God’s wonderful grace. Therefore I think this should be more of an indictment against the church then with parents alone. If the child not hearing or learning about the Gospel in church then it is no wonder that there is a mass exodus of children leaving the faith when they turn 18 to 20.



Scott1 said:


> But, it's not quite right to think of parents being held responsible if their children do not become believers. God alone can do that, despite any circumstance, including bad parenting.



Was it right for God to hold parents and Israel responsible regarding the teaching of the faith? I would say so, likewise we to must share in that same level of responsibility. Granted that it is only God that grants and gives salvation despite of the means we employ, however does this exclude the responsibility for parents and the church to proclaim the Gospel to children and the world? No, faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God. If we believe this then why would the church and parents not teach children? Is it because it is thought that they don’t need to hear it because they are covenant children, already Christians in of themselves? This reminds me of a story I once heard between two pastors in a book store. One pastor was an older gentleman, a Presbyterian, the other was a younger pastor, I do not remember if he also was a Presbyterian or a Baptist. The two were talking in the bookstore and the older pastor was upset with the younger for teaching children the gospel during the service. The older pastor said that the children were already Christians and did not need the gospel. I am not going to say that is the position of any of my brothers and sisters here, but if the story holds some truth for I do not remember where I heard it, then we should be repulsed for everyone needs to hear the gospel, believer and not believer alike. Children need that gospel training now regardless of age. It is a truth that should never be old for us. If we do not teach it then we fail in our responsibility given to us by God, for that is the means in which children are in the faith in the providence of God. Bad parenting by not holding to their responsibility in the faith can be placed at fault for their child’s blood would be on their hands. No parents would want to be a bad parent. But if parents are faithful in teaching the truth of scripture and child still rebels, then the parent should not be concerned regarding that child’s blood being on that parent’s hand for they obeyed God and that child’s blood will be on that child’s hand. Praise God however that he saves us despite of our efforts, circumstances, and who we are.


----------



## Dwimble (Jan 6, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> ...will the negligent parents be held responsible for the blood of their child?


My simple answer would be, no. Did the parents sin? Absolutely. Grievously so. They disobeyed God. But no one will go to hell because of someone else. That reprobate will go to hell because of His own sin and rejection of God who is visible in all creation. Remember, he would not repent even if someone rose from the dead to tell him.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 6, 2011)

Grimmson said:


> Warning: This will be a slightly long post.
> 
> I think Ezekiel 3:17-19 could be applied to parents because parents should be looked at as watchmen to deliver to their children the faithful message of the Gospel. Children by their very nature in Adam are wicked and will surely die as a result, for God says that the wicked “shall surely die” in verse 18 of the Ezekiel 3. God makes it clear that the one, Ezekiel, was to deliver a message to the wicked so that the wicked would repent. If Ezekiel failed to deliver this message then the wicked death is on the hands of Ezekiel, for not giving the message of life and warning he would have murdered the wicked, not physically but spiritually. If Ezekiel delivered the message faithfully then the blood of the wicked would not be on him. Now parents are not Old Testament prophets, nor are they clergy to give the sacraments, but they are still watchmen to care for the body and souls of children.
> That's not the point made, and I'm not seeing any of the previous posters saying parents are not responsible to teach and raise up their children in the faith.
> ...


 


Grimmson said:


> Quote Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
> 
> But, it's not quite right to think of parents being held responsible if their children do not become believers. God alone can do that, despite any circumstance, including bad parenting.
> Was it right for God to hold parents and Israel responsible regarding the teaching of the faith? I would say so, likewise we to must share in that same level of responsibility. Granted that it is only God that grants and gives salvation despite of the means we employ, however does this exclude the responsibility for parents and the church to proclaim the Gospel to children and the world? No, faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God. If we believe this then why would the church and parents not teach children? Is it because it is thought that they don’t need to hear it because they are covenant children, already Christians in of themselves? This reminds me of a story I once heard between two pastors in a book store. One pastor was an older gentleman, a Presbyterian, the other was a younger pastor, I do not remember if he also was a Presbyterian or a Baptist. The two were talking in the bookstore and the older pastor was upset with the younger for teaching children the gospel during the service. The older pastor said that the children were already Christians and did not need the gospel. I am not going to say that is the position of any of my brothers and sisters here, but if the story holds some truth for I do not remember where I heard it, then we should be repulsed for everyone needs to hear the gospel, believer and not believer alike. Children need that gospel training now regardless of age. It is a truth that should never be old for us. If we do not teach it then we fail in our responsibility given to us by God, for that is the means in which children are in the faith in the providence of God. Bad parenting by not holding to their responsibility in the faith can be placed at fault for their child’s blood would be on their hands. No parents would want to be a bad parent. *But if parents are faithful in teaching the truth of scripture and child still rebels, then the parent should not be concerned regarding that child’s blood being on that parent’s hand* for they obeyed God and that child’s blood will be on that child’s hand. Praise God however that he saves us despite of our efforts, circumstances, and who we are.



Again, the difficult with your analogy is that you are using terms that connote life and death, salvation and death, and that result is only in the hands of God.

In no way could a parent perfectly parent, either.

And even some who do still seem to see children go astray, not sure why, looking outwardly, only our Sovereign God knows, and only He can save a child or adult from their sins.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 6, 2011)

There's no such thing as a reprobate believer. All true believers are elect, even backslidden ones.

Parents - including believing parents - have a responsibility to teach the Gospel to their children. If they don't they are open to God withdrawing His favour from them and chastising them, even unto death, but they can't lose the fact that they are justified and going to Heaven. 

See the case of Eli and his sons in I Samuel.

If the children don't believe that is their responsibility, and they will be punished for their sin against the light they have been given.


----------



## Andres (Jan 6, 2011)

Grimmson said:


> Andrew, I think the question that was raised here is a legitimate questions because it deals with the major responsibilities that parents and the church have in regards to children. In both cases as I have indicated parents and the church as a whole are failing in their responsibility towards children as shown by the number of children who leave the faith after High School or their parent’s place for one reason or another. Christianity has been for some time not a matter of faith, but of a moral social construction. In other words of law and not of faith. Granted that if a parent is truly Christian they should want to raise the child in the faith, but parents need taught these things to. How often to parents, before they are parents and after they become such, receive training by the older individuals in the church based on Titus 2:3-8? I have hardly ever seen any attempt of that in my 22 years as a Christian, regards of domination. I do not think the issue is whether or not they are truly Christian, because only God knows the heart and who is his, but instead the role parents and children have in the church, which no offense to some in here is low. The fact that children may be going to church weekly doesn’t help much either because of the lack of gospel teaching that is even in our churches today, instead the focus in on personal transformation based on their own strength. Churches are good at teaching the law, but in relation to the Gospel I fear to say that the church is in decline of teaching the truth of God’s wonderful grace. Therefore I think this should be more of an indictment against the church then with parents alone. If the child not hearing or learning about the Gospel in church then it is no wonder that there is a mass exodus of children leaving the faith when they turn 18 to 20.



David, I would agree with you that so many churches today are weak in their presentation of the gospel. I would also agree with you that parents raising their children in the faith is of the utmost importance. These are completely different issue though than the question posed by the OP.


----------



## Grimmson (Jan 6, 2011)

For the sake of any reading this I divided out what I said and what Scott said. The point of the first part of my post, number 6, was to answer the question set forth personally from Rob, which can be seen in post number 3 of this thread. Now in regarding my response to Scott:



Scott1 said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > Warning: This will be a slightly long post.
> ...



The first section of post number 6 was written for Rob to explain my position, since he asked for it.



Scott1 said:


> The question of the original post, if I'm understanding it, is not whether parents are responsible to do right by their children, but whether the parents are held responsible if their children do not become believers.
> 
> Since parents are powerless to make God save anyone, they cannot be held responsible for the result. Because, in the end, the result is not theirs to give.



The question that was posed by Rob was the following, “If the parents of a child are completely negligent in bringing up their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and that child dies not ever coming to faith in Jesus Christ, then will the negligent parents be held responsible for the blood of their child? ”

The issue was not whether or not parents are blamed from their children not becoming believers, but concerning if parents did not bring their child up in a negligent way “in the nurture and admonition. And if they didn’t whether or not those parents would be held accountable by God. The point of the post was not whether parents are to be blamed for their child coming to faith, but strictly speaking the responsibility and consequence of parents actions. A least that was my understanding of Rob’s post, he can say otherwise if I am mistaken. I am not saying that God alone does not save, but as Christians and Calvinists we do recognize that God has means to that end. If one to denies that God has means, such as the preaching of the Gospel for those to be convicted of sin and come to faith then one falls under the heresy of hyper-calvinism. Parents are not powerless to communicate the truth of the gospel to them, and it is a means in which children can come to faith, just like it is the means of a unregenerate in a Lord’s day worship service to come to faith after hearing the gospel in the preached word. God is merciful in that he sends agents, Ezekiel being one example, to tell the wicked of their sins. Like it or not children by nature are wicked and need to be warned of their sin.

I think we may have a difference of opinion of what Rob was asking. At least that what I hope.



Scott1 said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > Proverbs 22:6 is the first that comes to mind, so does Ephesians 6:4. In both of these passages we see the requirement and the reason for training children up in the Lord. We see it not only commanded in these two places to teach children the faith, but also in Psalm 78, verses 3-5 ( I have a manuscript version of a sermon that I have delivered concerning this Psalm if anyone is interested). Deuteronomy 4:9, 6:7, and 11:19 are also specific on the requirement of teaching children the faith; for this is more then an issue of legacy, but of truly life and death. Expanding the Psalm and Deuteronomy to not just the individual parent, but also to the church, for the Psalm and the book of Deuteronomy was given to Israel-the church then it is also the responsibility as a church community to teach children as well and keeping parents accountable to what is taught directly by the local church. If that accountability, within a reformed or Presbyterian context, is not in place then the church is also failing their oral covenant with that child, the parents, and God at the time of the child’s baptism (assuming one believes that they truly are covenant children). In the case of Baptist churches fault also lies with them as well, not in the fact that the child is not baptized for that another and different debate, but that they should help teach parents to teach their children in both by direct and indirect means. In other words, they should teach parents so that they can teach their children, this may include pedagogical methods, and by assisting by example by seeing how their children is taught. Another issue I will address that shows fault by the church is that pastors are not instructing parents on how they should do their family devotions/worship and the lack of accountability for such devotions either by direct contact with a pastor at church or by the pastor going on family visitations. Therefore the fault is not just with the parents alone, but also with the church as a whole.
> ...


If you look at the context I am not talking about the church universal, but the local church that has promised to the parents at the moment of the child’s baptism to assist in the care of raising the child to faith. I also extend the same fault to Baptist churches that need to teach parents on how to teach their children the faith. 



Scott1 said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > If the church finds out about the lack of time spent with teaching children would that church step up and assist the parents or place the parents under church discipline? The answer to that question is typically no; which is why I think that it is more then the parents that would be placed into judgment, but also the teachers and pastors of the church that watch over even our souls. Therefore we share in that blood.
> ...



To say that God does not use people and to say that the church is not responsible in the communicating of the message of God to convict sins and converts is unbiblical is a major indicate against what I just said. 


> (Rom 10:13 KJV) - For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
> (Rom 10:14 KJV) - How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
> (Rom 10:15 KJV) - And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
> (Rom 10:16 KJV) - But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
> ...



I have been using scripture to back up my claims, to being of my first post. So please do not charge me with being unbiblical and accept that man does have a role in proclaiming the gospel. To say that man does not is heresy. God alone save, but man has the responsibility to repent and believe. The means that man receives this message is by God sending agents to proclaim his word, a preacher, a friend, and even a parent.



Scott1 said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > Andres said:
> ...



I did not say that teaching made one a believer, it is a means that people recognize who and what they are. I say again remember that God has means to reach his ends by the power of the Holy Spirit.



Scott1 said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > I would say so, likewise we to must share in that same level of responsibility. Granted that it is only God that grants and gives salvation despite of the means we employ, however does this exclude the responsibility for parents and the church to proclaim the Gospel to children and the world?
> ...



If you do not see people arguing against the moral responsibility of parents then let us not be arguing. And leave that we are both in agreement at this point. But please do not charge me with being unbiblical when I was the first to show my points from scripture and I have been doing so still. I was not making a comment about perfect parenting, but over the need of the gospel to be communicated in the homes of believers to their children. 

I wish you all a good day.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 6, 2011)

Grimmson said:


> The question that was posed by Rob was the following, “If the parents of a child are completely negligent in bringing up their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and that child dies not ever coming to faith in Jesus Christ, then will the negligent parents be held responsible for the blood of their child? ”



David,
It's hard to follow your logic.

When we say "responsible for the blood of their child," it sounds like that means the life (salvation) of that child.

That _would_ be unbiblical.

None of the posts I'm seeing are arguing that parents are not responsible for their sin (e.g. not raising their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord), nor that that responsibility is not very, very important... but not to the point of being guilty for the child's life (salvation).

---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 PM ----------




Grimmson said:


> So please do not charge me with being unbiblical and accept that man does have a role in proclaiming the gospel.



Nor does it seem any of the previous posts are arguing that man does not have a role in proclaiming the gospel.

But man's role is to teach, preach, share the gospel, knowing that God alone can make a believer. Knowing that the same God who ordains the ends (whether someone is elect, saved), also ordains the means (ordinarily through the preaching of the gospel).

(I say "ordinarily" because God can save someone without those means, e.g. an infant in the womb- but that would be a whole other post.!


----------

