# Great post on "Presumptive Parenting", by Dr. David Murray



## JOwen (Sep 17, 2012)

I’d rather err with the Baptists | HeadHeartHand Blog


----------



## Miss Marple (Sep 17, 2012)

I'd rather err with the Covenanters.

My sons are Rothenbuhlers. They might deny that, change their name when they grow up. But until and if they do, they are Rothenbuhlers. Rothenbuhlers have their own history, their own tendencies, their own foibles, a certain identity. I would not say to my son, "I am a Rothenbuhler. I hope you become one one day. It would be wonderful for you to join us." That would insult their identity and make them wrongly insecure.

My sons are Americans. They were born here, to American parents. They might deny that, change citizenship when they become older, even become an enemy of the state. But until and if they do, they are Americans. We have a history, a culture, an identity. I would not say to my son, "I am an American. I hope you become one when you turn 18." That would insult and confuse them. 

Similarly, my sons are Christians. We are a Christian family. They might grow up and deny their birthright, like foolish Esau. But until and if they do, they are Christians. We have a history, a culture, an identity, a way of salvation. I would not say to my son, "I am a Christian. I hope some day you will be one, too. Until then you are a lost soul." This would deny them the benefits of the covenant, hard won by our Lord Jesus; and be a great disservice to them.


----------



## Zach (Sep 17, 2012)

I am not really sure that the message parents send to their covenant Children is, "You are a Christian, act like one." Rather, from what I've seen, they are simply taught they the need to trust in Jesus as we all do.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 17, 2012)

On what grounds would we not call our children Christians. If we say that it's because we don't know if they are truly elect, then why do we call all of our brethren at church Christians? Do we know the hearts of our fellow believers better than we know our own children?

As for me, I'll stick with the beautiful Covenant(and I believe, biblical) teachings of Reformed Presbyterians. I think it's those Baptists who err that presume to have "regeneration goggles" and want to call everyone else's salvation into question. Not that all Baptist do this, of course, but neither do all Paedo-Baptist parents presume their children's election.


----------



## Miss Marple (Sep 17, 2012)

"I am not really sure that the message parents send to their covenant Children is, "You are a Christian, act like one.""

That is what I say, either directly or in so many words. For instance:

"Son, you are not to laugh at those jokes. The boys in the neighborhood are not Christians; but you are. And God has told us to avoid coarse jesting. You will be different from your friends in some ways. This is one of them. I don't want you telling or laughing at those type of jokes."


----------



## matt01 (Sep 17, 2012)

Thanks you for sharing that article. We dealt with a lot of that when we attended a PCA church for several years.



> Huge Difference This presumption makes a huge difference to our parenting. Instead of repeatedly telling children that they are born dead in trespasses and sins and need to be converted to Christ (my own childhood experience of Presbyterianism), they are told, “You are a Christian…act like one.”


----------



## JOwen (Sep 17, 2012)

matt01 said:


> Thanks you for sharing that article. We dealt with a lot of that when we attended a PCA church for several years.
> 
> 
> 
> > Huge Difference This presumption makes a huge difference to our parenting. Instead of repeatedly telling children that they are born dead in trespasses and sins and need to be converted to Christ (my own childhood experience of Presbyterianism), they are told, “You are a Christian…act like one.”



As a pastor, and a father of 9, it is a great concern for me. Just thought others would like to read it.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 17, 2012)

Pastor Lewis, I appreciated the article in the fact that it points out the need for Paedobaptist parents to teach their children about their sin nature and need of a Savior. I just wouldn't have gone as far as David Murray does, in saying that he'd rather err with the Baptists. I was raised in a Baptist church and to me it seemed that the Baptists were presumptive in their own way. All children are presumed to be heathen until they prove themselves otherwise. Even baptized children, who have made profession of faith, in certain Baptist churches are still under a good deal of continual scrutiny regarding their salvation. It seemed to me that a lot of children were driven away from the church by this harmful attitude. I rejoice to say that all of our children are baptized, by God's grace, and we refer to ourselves as a Christian family. Dr. Beeke has some great resources on bringing the gospel to our Covenant children.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 17, 2012)

I thought it was a good article in terms of provoking paedobaptists to think about the need to improve their baptism but I think it leaves the unfortunate impression that if parents thought more like Baptist who are pressing upon their kids the need to close with Christ that it would be a preferable "error". If the article is to warn against the errors of falling too hard on one side or the other, I would rather choose neither.

I fully agree that the error espoused by some that baptism confers saving grace _ex opere operato_ or that good parenting ensures that our kids remain in the Covenant is an extremely dangerous error. I was once very tempted by the notion of Covenant succession reasoning that God somehow would give me elect kids if I simply applied the Proverbial principles properly. Thankfully, that was before I had kids and began damaging them with this theology. The Reformed Church's repudiation of the Federal Vision makes clear that this is not our Confession but it still infects many.

Nevertheless, if we're going to be concerned about the "extremes" of the errors, is the error that once we have seen the child "converted" and subsequently baptized that we're confident of his salvation any less a very serious error? In other words, parents ought to be rightly concerned that their children see themselves as sinners and in the need of the atoning work of Christ but there is in many Baptist circles (note I did not say _all_) a notion that once the person has made a profession that the Church deems credible that the child is assuredly one of Christ's own - a converted, adopted child of God. The administration of baptism is the Church's way of saying, in effect: "We are convinced you are Christ's by your profession and so we baptize you." Is it not common to hear of people noting the time of their conversion as a fixed event with confidence that the work of salvation has been completed?

In other words, in the extreme paedobaptist, the problem is a presumption of salvation based on baptism whereas in the extreme baptist there is a presumption of salvation by profession.

It's my belief that a Biblical understanding of what it is to be a disciple is of utmost importance and this cannot be solved by appealing to two poles that miss the mark.

I don't, for a single minute, believe that my children are saved by my parenting. Any illusions of that have long dissipated as I'm too aware of the sin in my heart and the sin I commit even when I'm trying to discipline them toward the end that they would grow in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Every night, when I pray for the kids, I pray for their conversion. For that matter, I pray for the continued conversion of Sonya and me. I was made a disciple long ago by baptism and the Church continues to teach me everything that Christ has commanded. I press in and strive with the rest of the Body of Christ to lay hold of Christ daily. My children may be more immature and I have less knowledge about what they can intellectualize about the faith but our duty is essentially the same. 

I hope, some day, to see them confessing Christ with an adult maturity but I will never cease calling them unto Christ as long as I have breath. This is a marathon and there's no point at which we've arrived. Oh, for sure, I know that Justification is a certain event but as we are united to Christ by faith we are being saved and it is not mine to know or care where a person is on the spectrum of being converted to Christ initially in Justification or being converted daily in the process of sanctification. I simply continue to desperately cling to Him and plead with my wife, my children, and all around me to cling to Him as well.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 17, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> Similarly, my sons are Christians



Miss Marple what, if I may ask, is your doctrine of total depravity? Were your children born as fallen sinners in need of saving grace?


----------



## JOwen (Sep 17, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Pastor Lewis, I appreciated the article in the fact that it points out the need for Paedobaptist parents to teach their children about their sin nature and need of a Savior. I just wouldn't have gone as far as David Murray does, in saying that he'd rather err with the Baptists. I was raised in a Baptist church and to me it seemed that the Baptists were presumptive in their own way. All children are presumed to be heathen until they prove themselves otherwise. Even baptized children, who have made profession of faith, in certain Baptist churches are still under a good deal of continual scrutiny regarding their salvation. It seemed to me that a lot of children were driven away from the church by this harmful attitude. I rejoice to say that all of our children are baptized, by God's grace, and we refer to ourselves as a Christian family. Dr. Beeke has some great resources on bringing the gospel to our Covenant children.



I was also raised in a baptist church and home, so I also know from whence I speak. I think what Dr. Murray is trying to convey is the Puritan principle that even children who are born in a covenant home, and are addressed as members of the Church of God, are still in need of a one-to one correlation between sinner and Savior. I can't speak for everyone's experience, only my own. I see the concern Dr. Murray has, perhaps because we run in the same circles, and I am sympathetic to his observations as they now stand in some circles. To tell our children the truth is best for their souls, and that is, though they are born into the covenant community, there is no less the command that they turn and flee unto Christ as a personal Savior, thus ratifying the covenant placed upon them at baptism. I found great help in reading Samuel Rutherford's "The Covenant of Life Opened". In so doing, I discovered a proper treatment of the way in which "Our Children are, and are not in the Covenant of Grace." The promises of the covenant become the pleading ground at the throne of grace, that the Lord would do a saving work in the hearts of our children. This is what Dr. Murray is aiming at so far as I can tell.

Kind regards,


----------



## ZackF (Sep 17, 2012)

JOwen said:


> I’d rather err with the Baptists | HeadHeartHand Blog



Right now I am taking a parenting class through Sunday School lead by one of our elders. We watch an episode of "Getting to the Heart of Parent" by Paul Tripp and then discuss it after. In the last episode Tripp mentioned that one of the most exhilerating moments he had as a parent was when his daughter broke down realizing her inadequacy in living up to God's standard in life with respect to her behavior toward her siblings. Whether or not she was a believer before then or not I don't know but many of us Christians don't know when we ourselves were regenerated, how can we expect to know for sure when others are. We can only train and instruct and react to the circumstances God provides.


----------



## Gesetveemet (Sep 17, 2012)

post said-
- their children know that they are “dead in trespasses and sins” and that they need to be born again and converted to Christ.
- parents teach, train, and discipline them accordingly, reminding them of their privileges under the Gospel and warning them of their greater responsibility as a result.

We teach this because we know that there are two kinds of covenant childern and because mans resposiblity is a doctrine of the Bible that is revealed and Covenant of Grace is not revealed. Little childern pray the Lord for a new heart.


.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 17, 2012)

JOwen said:


> DeniseM said:
> 
> 
> > Pastor Lewis, I appreciated the article in the fact that it points out the need for Paedobaptist parents to teach their children about their sin nature and need of a Savior. I just wouldn't have gone as far as David Murray does, in saying that he'd rather err with the Baptists. I was raised in a Baptist church and to me it seemed that the Baptists were presumptive in their own way. All children are presumed to be heathen until they prove themselves otherwise. Even baptized children, who have made profession of faith, in certain Baptist churches are still under a good deal of continual scrutiny regarding their salvation. It seemed to me that a lot of children were driven away from the church by this harmful attitude. I rejoice to say that all of our children are baptized, by God's grace, and we refer to ourselves as a Christian family. Dr. Beeke has some great resources on bringing the gospel to our Covenant children.
> ...



Jerrold,

I do not wish to overstate my critique as being completely critical of the ideas expressed. I knew what he was aiming at and it's easy to pick nits. I did, however, want to express my own thoughts on it. Sometimes things are rightly meant to provoke us to think so, in that regard, he succeeded.


----------



## Miss Marple (Sep 17, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> > Similarly, my sons are Christians
> ...



Yes my children are conceived as fallen sinners in need of saving grace, but I believe the covenant identifies them as Christians. This does not mean they are not in need of a Savior. I am a Christian, yet indeed am a fallen sinner in need of saving grace.

My message to them is not: "You are godly, you are perfect, you have no need of a Savior."

It is: "You are a Christian, you belong to Christ, His word is sufficient, look to Him, He is your identity. You are not in a spiritual no man's land. Jesus is the reason we read the word, pray, attend church, baptize you, say grace, forgive others, ferret out idolatry, abstain from violence, dress modestly, etc. We are not operating in a vacuum. We have a reason for what we believe and what we do."

I knew a man raised by a Baptist pastor, who loved the Lord sincerely, and taught all his children among other things to sing "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know!" A strange thing to teach an unbeliever to sing. He expected Christian behavior from his children at all times. This is inconsistent; Christian behavior will not proceed from a non-Christian person.


----------



## JOwen (Sep 17, 2012)

Brother Rich,

I like your thinking. Conversely, if there was a prevailing emphasis today among the Presbyterian and Reformed, that our children were in_ no way _members of the covenant of grace, there would need to be a reminder of the covenant blessings given to our children by virtue of their birth. Dr. Murray is speaking from a certian kind of exposure, and I believe he is correct. 
So it's not one or the other, but both and. The one constant being, the need for the new birth for every fallen son or daughter of Adam. The _strait gate_ will always be so; weather one be a gentile like the Philippian Jailer, or the covenant Elder of Israel Zacchaeus, "Ye must be born again." 

Blessings,


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 17, 2012)

Thanks so much for this article, this is precisely the reason I am still baptist. 

If nothing else, the article is instructive to paedobaptists as to the mindset and thinking that baptists like I have. When I read the article, I thought, "Here is a guy that knows how I think and why I still believe in credo-baptism."

That Gene Veith quote is quite startling. Some baptists assume that many Presbyterians also think sort of this way about their kids, too. I am glad that this is not so.

I do believe that God promises to bless godly parenting as a general rule. I expect this as a general principle, and yet I feel we must wait for this to bear fruit in our children before we call them "Christian." They sit "under" the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace, and I expect that they are included, and yet (since to be in the covenant is to be in Christ) I await profession and fruit before they are allowed access to the ordinances given by Christ in that covenant (waiting to gain access not to the Lord's supper only after profession/fruit, but both baptism and the Lord's Supper).

"Lower confidence better than false confidence" rings true to me in the lack of any explicit NT example of baptism of any save for baptism of new disciples.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 17, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I thought it was a good article in terms of provoking paedobaptists to think about the need to improve their baptism but I think it leaves the unfortunate impression that if parents thought more like Baptist who are pressing upon their kids the need to close with Christ that it would be a preferable "error". If the article is to warn against the errors of falling too hard on one side or the other, I would rather choose neither.
> 
> I fully agree that the error espoused by some that baptism confers saving grace _ex opere operato_ or that good parenting ensures that our kids remain in the Covenant is an extremely dangerous error. I was once very tempted by the notion of Covenant succession reasoning that God somehow would give me elect kids if I simply applied the Proverbial principles properly. Thankfully, that was before I had kids and began damaging them with this theology. The Reformed Church's repudiation of the Federal Vision makes clear that this is not our Confession but it still infects many.
> 
> ...



That is a good quote, Rich:



> In other words, in the extreme paedobaptist, the problem is a presumption of salvation based on baptism whereas in the extreme baptist there is a presumption of salvation by profession.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 17, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> "Lower confidence better than false confidence" rings true to me in the lack of any explicit NT example of baptism of any save for baptism of new disciples.


If I may, I think the problem with this statement is that you are placing too much emphasis on being more or less confident as key.

I obviously believe the NT is explicit in commanding the baptism of disciples. The question is how do we approach discipleship according to what the Scriptures command. If we obey the Word of God then we have every confidence that God will be God and we are simply being obedient to the things revealed not because it is pragmatically more successful but because God has revealed it.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 17, 2012)

JOwen said:


> I was also raised in a baptist church and home, so I also know from whence I speak. I think what Dr. Murray is trying to convey is the Puritan principle that even children who are born in a covenant home, and are addressed as members of the Church of God, are still in need of a one-to one correlation between sinner and Savior. I can't speak for everyone's experience, only my own. I see the concern Dr. Murray has, perhaps because we run in the same circles, and I am sympathetic to his observations as they now stand in some circles. To tell our children the truth is best for their souls, and that is, though they are born into the covenant community, there is no less the command that they turn and flee unto Christ as a personal Savior, thus ratifying the covenant placed upon them at baptism. I found great help in reading Samuel Rutherford's "The Covenant of Life Opened". In so doing, I discovered a proper treatment of the way in which "Our Children are, and are not in the Covenant of Grace." The promises of the covenant become the pleading ground at the throne of grace, that the Lord would do a saving work in the hearts of our children. This is what Dr. Murray is aiming at so far as I can tell.



Pastor Lewis, I think that we are in agreement that Dr. Murray had good intentions and a good point in the fact that we, as Paedobaptists need to make sure that we are not presuming that our children are already saved and therefore neglecting to teach them the gospel. I just think that, "I’d rather err with the Baptists" was maybe not the best way to get that point across. The label Baptist is so broad. I think that the Baptists he describes might be Reformed Baptists, because in the dispensational, arminian Baptist churches that I've been in over the years it's been my experience that they don't go out of their way to teach the children the doctrines of grace. 

I am in a denomination in which there are both credo and paedo baptists. I would say that the credo baptists in our church do a great job of teaching their children, as do the paedo baptists. Maybe this(presumptive parenting) is more of a problem in other Paedobaptist demoninations that I am just not familiar with. I'm not overly familiar with Dr. Murray's teachings, except that I know our elders have been very blessed with his preaching, but I do look forward to hearing him speak next summer when he comes to Indy for the Reforming Families Conference that our church is hosting. 

Thank you for your recommendation of Rutherford's book, it sounds intriguing.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 17, 2012)

Pragmatism has nothing to do with it; the godly baptists I know are also trying to let God be God and follow what is revealed in Scripture. Jesus speaks much about false assurance and John the Baptist refuses to baptize the Pharisees, telling them to bring forth fruits fitting with repentance (Matthew 3:8).


----------



## JOwen (Sep 17, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Pastor Lewis, I think that we are in agreement that Dr. Murray had good intentions and a good point in the fact that we, as Paedobaptists need to make sure that we are not presuming that our children are already saved and therefore neglecting to teach them the gospel. I just think that, "I’d rather err with the Baptists" was maybe not the best way to get that point across. The label Baptist is so broad. I think that the Baptists he describes might be Reformed Baptists, because in the dispensational, arminian Baptist churches that I've been in over the years it's been my experience that they don't go out of their way to teach the children the doctrines of grace.
> 
> I am in a denomination in which there are both credo and paedo baptists. I would say that the credo baptists in our church do a great job of teaching their children, as do the paedo baptists. Maybe this(presumptive parenting) is more of a problem in other Paedobaptist demoninations that I am just not familiar with. I'm not overly familiar with Dr. Murray's teachings, except that I know our elders have been very blessed with his preaching, but I do look forward to hearing him speak next summer when he comes to Indy for the Reforming Families Conference that our church is hosting.
> 
> Thank you for your recommendation of Rutherford's book, it sounds intriguing.



Dear Denise,

Presumptive parenting is on the rise in many Reformed and Presbyterian circles in our day, where more time is spent on the "walk of faith" than the "new birth". It's not so much what is said that is the problem, it is what is omitted, namely, the need of a _new heart_ (as opposed to _a change of heart_). Do you see the difference? I think that the Free Presbyterian Churches of North America are probably better at communicating this to their people than many, at least in my experience in listening to them. I'm almost certain Dr. Murray is speaking here of our Reformed Baptist brethren when he says he would prefer to _err_ on their side. We do not want to speak "peace, peace, when there is not peace", to our children as it pertains to eternity. Too much is at stake. If you read the vast amount of material from our Puritan for-bearers, as well as the sound Southern and Northern Presbyterians and Congregationalists of yesteryear here in the USA, you will find much in their emphasis pertaining to the new birth. A stark contrast to much of what we read today in the same circles. That's my opinion, and experience anyway.


----------



## MW (Sep 18, 2012)

I have a high regard for David Murray. Among other things, he combines a conservative reformed theology with excellent communication skills and zeal for the glory of God. But I have a genuine concern for the office of the ministry, and I question the wisdom of ministers blogging so casually the thoughts that occur to them from time to time. Our commission is, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded us. A minister should deliberately shun giving his private thoughts and feelings on things. If he desires his words to be received in the name of Christ then he must purpose to speak as the oracles of God.

This blog post is quite badly presented. Why do I say that? Well, quite simply, we do not "err" at all when we stress the need for personal regeneration and faith in the Saviour. These are matters of first importance in the creed of evangelicals. We are glad to see our "Baptist" friends agreeing with us in these things. It would be a matter of concern if they did not. But the reality is, the point on which we agree with our "Baptist" friends is no error at all.

The disagreement emerges when we begin to look at the doctrines of regeneration and faith just a little deeper. When an individual searches into these important teachings he discovers that there are some differences of secondary importance among evangelicals. One of these secondary differences pertains to the nature of infant salvation, and the means by which this salvation is applied to them. This disagreement is so great that it led our "Baptist" friends to separate from the reformed churches and to maintain a divided existence in order to live out their own unique convictions on this matter. In other words, the issues that divide us are matters of principle. They assert, maintain, and defend a teaching which is altogether different from the teaching which paedobaptists assert, maintain, and defend.

Now, given that our differences are a matter of principle, it is quite confusing to see a blog post evaluating the differences without any reference to the principles which are at stake. If principle is not the governing standard for evaluating the quality of nurture which children are receiving, what is?

This might be surprising to some, but there is nothing in the raising of a child which naturally tends to make the child a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. There is absolutely nothing at all. Think on the parents' teaching, example, humility, patience, discipline, self-sacrifice, or diligence. These things separately or collectively have no power to make the slightest spiritual impression on a child. No parent is perfect, but if they were, there would still be nothing parents could do to put grace in the hearts of their offspring. Now, if that is the case, what is the point of suggesting that some parents are better at raising their children with respect to regeneration and saving faith?

We need to humble ourselves before God and ascribe unto Him the glory that is due to His name. Let us remember that the Lord is God, the Creator of our children, the covenant maker and covenant keeper who has placed them in our care for but a short time, the Sovereign Saviour of sinners who works all things after the counsel of His own will. As much as we are to love our children, we are still only to love them as ourselves; but we are to love God with all our being, and we are to resign ourselves to the purpose of God come what may. It might be His purpose to save our children, but let us remember that we have only done our duty and are unprofitable servants; all is to the praise of His glorious grace. Or He might permit them to wander away for a time with the intention of calling them to Himself later in life. But God might also leave our children in their sins, like Esau, and intends on making them an object by which to display His glorious justice; and He might purpose to break our hearts, and shake our false confidence in order to lead us to trust in Him alone, and humble us so as to mortify the pride of life, and many other holy and wholesome rebukes and chastisements; and He might make use of impenitent and unbelieving children to do it. We certainly cannot say we deserved better. All we can say, and all we should say, is, It is the Lord: let Him do what seemeth Him good, as painful as the situation might be.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 18, 2012)

> No parent is perfect, but if they were, there would still be nothing parents could do to put grace in the hearts of their offspring. Now, if that is the case, what is the point of suggesting that some parents are better at raising their children with respect to regeneration and saving faith?



I don't entirely understand.

We cannot turn the faucet of grace upon our children, but we are certainly to hold them underneath that faucet as much as we can by prayer and bible instruction in the hopes that the Lord will turn on the spigot.


----------



## Miss Marple (Sep 18, 2012)

How would this teaching be applied by those who find "presumptive parenting" to be in error, in the event of the death of a small child in your respective congregations?

If, say, a kindergartner in your congregation died, what would you say to the parents? Would you preach the funeral as though he were in heaven? Or more than likely? Or just as possibly as any other child? I don't ask this sarcastically; I sincerely want to know.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 18, 2012)

Presumptive regeneration or presumptive election aren't taught in the Bible.

Children brought up in the Visible Church and the administration of the CoG are Christians in that sense. Whether they are Christians by regeneration is another matter. The same is true for adults in the Visible Church and administration of the CoG.

We don't have election or regeneration goggles.

*Matthew*


> Or He might permit them to wander away for a time with the intention of calling them to Himself later in life.



Our Lord knew the pain of an unbelieving family, and what an example they had from an elder brother.



> For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.(Heb 4:15-16)


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 18, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> This might be surprising to some, but there is nothing in the raising of a child which naturally tends to make the child a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. There is absolutely nothing at all. Think on the parents' teaching, example, humility, patience, discipline, self-sacrifice, or diligence. These things separately or collectively have no power to make the slightest spiritual impression on a child. No parent is perfect, but if they were, there would still be nothing parents could do to put grace in the hearts of their offspring. Now, if that is the case, what is the point of suggesting that some parents are better at raising their children with respect to regeneration and saving faith?
> 
> We need to humble ourselves before God and ascribe unto Him the glory that is due to His name. Let us remember that the Lord is God, the Creator of our children, the covenant maker and covenant keeper who has placed them in our care for but a short time, the Sovereign Saviour of sinners who works all things after the counsel of His own will. As much as we are to love our children, we are still only to love them as ourselves; but we are to love God with all our being, and we are to resign ourselves to the purpose of God come what may. It might be His purpose to save our children, but let us remember that we have only done our duty and are unprofitable servants; all is to the praise of His glorious grace. Or He might permit them to wander away for a time with the intention of calling them to Himself later in life. But God might also leave our children in their sins, like Esau, and intends on making them an object by which to display His glorious justice; and He might purpose to break our hearts, and shake our false confidence in order to lead us to trust in Him alone, and humble us so as to mortify the pride of life, and many other holy and wholesome rebukes and chastisements; and He might make use of impenitent and unbelieving children to do it. We certainly cannot say we deserved better. All we can say, and all we should say, is, It is the Lord: let Him do what seemeth Him good, as painful as the situation might be.



My dear brother it is so very good to have you posting again and may it please our Lord to sustain you for a long time yet. Your post here is further evidence of your wisdom and insight into the ways of our God and your words need to be considered by every Christian father and mother.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 18, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> How would this teaching be applied by those who find "presumptive parenting" to be in error, in the event of the death of a small child in your respective congregations?
> 
> If, say, a kindergartner in your congregation died, what would you say to the parents? Would you preach the funeral as though he were in heaven? Or more than likely? Or just as possibly as any other child? I don't ask this sarcastically; I sincerely want to know.



Having preached such a funeral and been in attendance of another in our congregation I will answer for myself. When a little one is taken by our Lord in death we grieve our loss. As those who loved and invested time in the life of the child we recognize that our larger desires (i.e. seeing the child mature and exhibit a personal knowledge of and faith in the Savior) were not granted and we bow in tearful submission to the God of all comfort and say "Your will be done." Whether in the mysteries of our Triune God He, in His eternal counsels has foreordained the merits of Christ to be applied to such we dare not absolutely affirm nor deny. Rather we trust in the goodness and wisdom of Him who always does that which is right.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 18, 2012)

We are all, by virtue of Adam's sin and our own, outside of Christ, dead (in trespasses and sin), needing regeneration. We must be born again in order to repent and believe. Everyone needs to repent and believe. Only those who are Christ's truly will. 

Those sentences above are true. But how do we preach the gospel? We preach the indicative of the gospel and the imperative that arises out of the gospel. The indicative of the gospel is the person and work of Christ--who Jesus is and what He has done for us. The imperative that arises out of that is "repent and believe." So when we go into all the world to preach the gospel we proclaim the person and work of Christ and then we call up all men everywhere to repent and believe.

Do we tell men that they are dead in sins and must be born again? Yes. Do we exhort them to be born again? No. That is a work in which they are wholly passive, even as folk are in their first birth (which is why Jesus uses the metaphor of birth). While we preach total depravity and the necessity for the new birth, the exhortation is that men and women do that which arises out of the new birth--we call folk to repent and believe. This is the apostolic preaching of the cross: Christ's person and work and the exhortation to believe and repent. 

This is what we do with our covenant children as well. We tell them that they must be born again and converted (as must everyone). We tell them the old, old story of Jesus and His love and then we encourage and exhort them to trust Christ and repent of their sins. To begin that and never stop. We tell them to look to Christ and to Him alone. We don't tell them to look for or at some particular experience. We know that they need to be born again (perhaps they already are), but what we tell them is to believe and repent. Do we tell them that they can't do that apart from God's grace? Of course. No one can. We speak freely of the heart of depravity--inability. We tell them that we are unable to do anything whatsoever to please God in and of ourselves. We tell them that if what Christ has done does not please God, what can we possibly do? We must believe and repent. 

Part of the confusion engendered by Pastor Murray's post, it seems to me, is that the effect of his presentation is to communicate that we are to encourage our children to "see if something has happened." The way he puts it has the effect of prompting parent or child to look for something to happen and to ascertain if it has happened. But the new birth is never seen, only its effects are seen: like the wind blowing the leaves (John 3). We are not to tell our children, or ourselves, or anyone else, that we are to look to anything other than Jesus. For some it might take a crisis conversion to do so. But that does not matter. What matters is looking to Jesus. For others, the Lord may work in their hearts so that they look to Jesus all the days of their lives and never know a time when they don't look to Him. The question to all is--do you repent and believe?

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 18, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> I have a high regard for David Murray. Among other things, he combines a conservative reformed theology with excellent communication skills and zeal for the glory of God. But I have a genuine concern for the office of the ministry, and I question the wisdom of ministers blogging so casually the thoughts that occur to them from time to time. Our commission is, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded us. A minister should deliberately shun giving his private thoughts and feelings on things. If he desires his words to be received in the name of Christ then he must purpose to speak as the oracles of God.
> 
> This blog post is quite badly presented. Why do I say that? Well, quite simply, we do not "err" at all when we stress the need for personal regeneration and faith in the Saviour. These are matters of first importance in the creed of evangelicals. We are glad to see our "Baptist" friends agreeing with us in these things. It would be a matter of concern if they did not. But the reality is, the point on which we agree with our "Baptist" friends is no error at all.
> 
> ...


Well said. What I was trying to drive at was avoiding the idea that we need to err in one direction because one approach is more effective than another.

I'm convinced that my children are _both_ members of the Covenant of Grace, set apart from the world AND that they need to be brought into contact with the Gospel and need to repent and turn to Christ and I don't see them as conflicting poles that push one another apart. It is a corruption of either idea the pits them against each other and an error on the nature of the COG or an error on the nature of conversion doesn't point in the direction of the whole truth but away from it.

I keep wrestling with this because, as you point out, an error doesn't help anything. One of the things I was trying to point out to Pergamum is that being "under-confident" of our kid's salvation doesn't give them or us any "advantage" in the Sovereign work of God. As you rightly point out, the regenerating work of the Spirit is not some sort of thing that may be summoned by us by our faithfulness. One of the difficulties in understanding any of these things fully is our limits as creatures. We think we understand the relationship between prayer and God's work but we can only hint at it at best. We certainly know when we're sinning as parents and have much to repent of and we know what our duty is as parents but the Scriptures don't give us any sort of guarantee that our kids will be regenerated no matter how much we work at it. 

I think it's hard for us to let go of the idea that salvation is by grace alone and not anything foreseen in the creature or the parents. That's not at all to relieve us of the responsibility under the command of God to pray earnestly for our children and to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. It's not, either, to deny secondary causality and act is if nothing we do matters either. Yet, I think we're often guilty (without articulating it) of the theology of Job's friends.


Pergamum said:


> > No parent is perfect, but if they were, there would still be nothing parents could do to put grace in the hearts of their offspring. Now, if that is the case, what is the point of suggesting that some parents are better at raising their children with respect to regeneration and saving faith?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would suggest that you need to think about what you just wrote. The Lord uses means but the means do not determine the eternal counsel of God. 

My point above concerning "pragmatism" again gets to this notion that people say that one method makes a person more "convertible". Matthew articulated my concern well. Your initial reply was to sort of extol the idea that "under-confidence" was more profitable for the child. My point was to note that we need to ask: "Under" or "Over" in relationship to what? What is the standard? I don't really think in terms of confidence with respect to my child (or another adult) being more or less elect. What I can confidently obey is the Word of God and let Him provide the increase.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 18, 2012)

29 above was a Part I of sorts, not more fully addressing the baptismal question.

Perhaps it would be helpful at this point to cite _The Directory for the Publick Worship of God_, adopted by the Westminster Assembly of Divines (1645), as that which would come the closest to capturing the view of paedo-baptists on the PB (some having adopted it and others of us having directories heavily influenced by it):

*Before baptism, the minister is to use some words of instruction, touching the institution, nature, use, and ends of this sacrament, shewing*, 
"That it is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal: That the water, in baptism, representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature: That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ: That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, 
have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before: That the Son of God admitted little children into his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, For of such is the kingdom of God: That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized: That the inward grace and virtue of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered; and that the fruit and power thereof reacheth to the whole course of our life; and that outward baptism is not so necessary, that, through the want thereof, the infant is in danger of damnation, or the parents guilty, if they do not contemn or neglect the ordinance of Christ, when and where it may be had." 

Baptism does not mark our children as Christians or make them federally holy. They are that before their baptism. That they are, in fact, is the reason that they are to baptized. They are born within the church and have, by their birth, interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it. Thus by their baptism they who are born within the church are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church. Read the paragraph again. If one says, "must it be put so carefully and precisely?"--the answer is "yes" as must all theology (think of the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation). There is mystery here, as with the Supper. 

It is to these children that we urge faith and repentance. We look for them to do this. We expect them to do this. As Matthew wrote, do all of them do it? No. But the expectation and hope, all the days of their lives, is that they will, and that they are to, turn to Christ in repentance and faith. But it's always in the light of the above paragraph. 

Don't try to smooth out and rationalize this away any more than you would the reality of Three who are One, or of Jesus being fully God and fully man, or of us being morally responsible agents and God being sovereign. This is the same kind of problems that occurs everywhere else in theology and the tendency to "make it simple" on the Procustean bed of our logic must be resisted. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 18, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, *regeneration*, adoption, and life eternal



Greetings Alan,

In reading the many clauses of this lengthy quote from the Directory I may not be getting it exactly right. Is the portion that I have copied above being predicated of the infant himself at the time of the baptismal ceremony?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 18, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Originally Posted by Alan D. Strange
> That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal
> Greetings Alan,
> 
> In reading the many clauses of this lengthy quote from the Directory I may not be getting it exactly right. Is the portion that I have copied above being predicated of the infant himself at the time of the baptismal ceremony?



What you cite from the Directory describes what is true of those who are vitally in the covenant of grace. It is not being said that the infant is known to be vitally in the covenant of grace (which only the elect are), but that this is what is true of those vitally in the covenant of grace and is that which baptism signs and seals. It is being said that the baptisand enjoys then and there all the "outward privileges of the church," and that the ordinance stands for all that pertains to those who belong to Christ. That has to be taken together with this:



Alan D. Strange said:


> That the inward grace and virtue of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered; and that the fruit and power thereof reacheth to the whole course of our life



Peace,
Alan


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 18, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by Alan D. Strange
> ...



Also, Bob, the WCF says about Sacraments:



> CHAPTER XXVII.
> 
> Of the Sacraments.
> 
> ...



Notice that the language notes that sacraments are more than bare signs BUT it qualifies this by noting that it is the Holy Spirit who confers the graces signified according to the Lord's good pleasure. The Chapter on Baptism then recapitulates this idea when it notes:



> I. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, *the grace promised* is not only offered, but really exhibited and *conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such* (whether of age or infants) *as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.*


If one does not carefully note the qualifications that our Confession makes, it is easy to make the mistake that the mere act of baptism confers grace. The Confession not only protects the idea that the Church doesn't confer salvation by a Sacrament but also guards the idea that a Sacrament is much more than a bare sign because, for those to whom the grace belongs, the Holy Spirit seals and confers what is signified by it so that a believer can look to His baptism and be connected to the eternal plan of God.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 18, 2012)

Thanks Alan and Rich.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 18, 2012)

I was reading through the comments from Dr. Murray's blog regarding this thread and came across an excellent comment by Gavin Beers of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing). 



> I get the point you are making. It is perhaps helpful in one direction but not in another. Let me throw another argument into the mix in regard to ‘Presumptive Parenting.’
> 
> We are to presume nothing. Presumptive regeneration is wrong, so is presumptive unregeneration. We treat our children as members of the visible Church and preach the whole word of God to the whole man as we do to other members of the visible Church. We press them with commands to repent and believe and we press them with the duties of the Christian life. As members of the visible Church they are called not only to repent and believe but to bear the reproach of Christ, our theology is mixed up and confusion will result if we fall into Baptist presumptive unregeneration.
> 
> ...


----------



## MW (Sep 18, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> > No parent is perfect, but if they were, there would still be nothing parents could do to put grace in the hearts of their offspring. Now, if that is the case, what is the point of suggesting that some parents are better at raising their children with respect to regeneration and saving faith?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If we may not presume upon the monergistic regeneration of our children, then we certainly should not presume upon godly parenting to effect it. This is just another kind of "presumptive parenting," only it is worse because it lays the weight of the child's salvation on the parent. We are to wait upon the means of grace, but it is God who must bless those means. Godly parenting is never declared in Scripture to be a means of grace. It might serve to beautify the gospel, but it can never beatify it.


----------



## MW (Sep 18, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm convinced that my children are _both_ members of the Covenant of Grace, set apart from the world AND that they need to be brought into contact with the Gospel and need to repent and turn to Christ and I don't see them as conflicting poles that push one another apart. It is a corruption of either idea the pits them against each other and an error on the nature of the COG or an error on the nature of conversion doesn't point in the direction of the whole truth but away from it.



That is a wonderfully balanced statement.

I tend to think the modern psychological fallacy, that children become what their parents make them, is somehow lurking beneath the troubled waters. We can readily accept the biblical balance of God's eternal purpose and the prayerful use of the means of grace when it comes to the salvation of ourselves or others; but when it comes to children there is a strong temptation to assume a mediatorial and redemptive role. The Reformed then become no better than Romanists in either "presumptive" direction they choose to take. On this subject, like every other, our minds need to be renewed, and our reformed understanding of scriptural principles must come to the fore.


----------



## MW (Sep 18, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Part of the confusion engendered by Pastor Murray's post, it seems to me, is that the effect of his presentation is to communicate that we are to encourage our children to "see if something has happened."



Well observed! Rev. Beers statement is hitting the same note: there should not be a presumption of regeneration or non-regeneration.


----------



## timmopussycat (Sep 18, 2012)

Gavin Beers of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) wrote 



> We are to presume nothing. Presumptive regeneration is wrong, so is presumptive unregeneration. We treat our children as members of the visible Church and preach the whole word of God to the whole man as we do to other members of the visible Church. We press them with commands to repent and believe and we press them with the duties of the Christian life.



For those paedo baptists who think we credo's treat our children as heathens: if you change the word "members" to adherents each time it occurs in the first the above paragraph, those comments become a perfect description of how cb's at our best treat our children both at home and in church.


----------



## Miss Marple (Sep 18, 2012)

As I mused over all the posts on this issue while driving car pool, Joshua's declaration came to mind:

"But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:16b)

How odd it would seem if he were to qualify that statement, like so:

"But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD, except all those who have not made a clear, believable, consistent profession of faith."

I considered further:

"For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?" 1st Corinthians 1:14 - not speaking about the covenant in regards to our children, but still I think to the point.

Imagine saying, "Son, remember to be a good witness at Boy Scouts, as much as possible under the circumstances because I am not really convinced you are saved," "Son, it is time to wake up, go to church, and worship God, in a manner of speaking, since you are probably not regenerate and it's rather just a habit at this point," or "Son, remember to bring your offering this morning, even though the church is supposed to be supported by the offerings of God's actual people," or "Son, come pray with me, even though I'm not at all sure you believe in the one we are praying to."

To me, it is nonsensical. I don't mean to mock anyone on the board. But it seems to me to be a conflicted and weak message to send to our children.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.


----------



## MarieP (Sep 19, 2012)

Pastor Jim taught a Sunday School on the issue of means of grace in the conversion of children. He basically had two framing points:

1. God alone can grant the gifts of a new heart, faith, and repentance. If the children aren't converted, it doesn't necessarily mean the parents did something wrong. Successful parenting ultimately is using the means God has given and being faithful and obedient to God. God must bring the increase.

2. There are means of grace that God has given to promote the conversion of our children, and we ought to confidently sow in hope.

"We ought not to sow with the idea of, well, no guarantees, God's sovereign. That's not why you plant tomato seeds. You plant tomato seeds in hope you're going to be eating some really nice tomatoes and [if you don't] you're disappointed and wonder what went wrong and how we could make it right. That's how we plant."

There are also ways children can be hindered (as in the case of Solomon). But even while Solomon stood in the way of his ultimate desires for his son, Rehoboam was held responsible for his own rebellion and hardness of heart.

The Place of Means in Our Children's Conversion - SermonAudio.com


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 23, 2012)

*Denise*


> I am in a denomination in which there are both credo and paedo baptists. I would say that the credo baptists in our church do a great job of teaching their children, as do the paedo baptists. Maybe this(presumptive parenting) is more of a problem in other Paedobaptist demoninations that I am just not familiar with. I'm not overly familiar with Dr. Murray's teachings, except that I know our elders have been very blessed with his preaching, but I do look forward to hearing him speak next summer when he comes to Indy for the Reforming Families Conference that our church is hosting.



Dr Murray is of a Free Church of Scotland ( latterly Free Church (Continuing) ) background. As far as I am aware things like presumptive regeneration, presumptive election, or presumptive parenting have never "caught on" in Scotland.


----------

