Judgment of Charity?

This is actually a topic of importance for me, as I have young children. It has to do with us Presbyterians and how we view our children.

Mainly, I want to know what the traditional position is: do we treat our infants and toddlers as elect until they prove to show otherwise, or do we just treat them as covenant members until they come to the table, then treat them as elect?

I have thought the former, but have just heard that just about all the divines believed the latter. Is this true? Because in baptism our children are sealed with forgiveness of sins, I understand this to give us the right to treat them as Christians. I give my children the judgment of charity and treat them as Christians, because our God is a God to our children as well.

Vos answers this question in his Volume 5, pp173-188. In short, he says: "On this there are two views that have both had defenders, though not both equally. We first give, in some propositions, the most common view that on good grounds can be called the historic-Calvinistic view." (p177). He goes on to describe the view as: "e) Communion in this grace can only be made known to us from certain fruits and marks; f) No one, and so also the church, can judge with certainty who are those who share in this grace. . .Only believers themselves by the witness of the Holy Spirit have a direct assurance of that; g) The church, as ministers of God's covenant, has to observe certain external marks of the grace of God and to act thereon according to the judgment of charity, without concerning itself further with the question. . ; h) This judgment of charity concerns all the members of the visible church, and only them. To these members belong not only the adults who profess Christ, and do not contradict this profession by their conduct, but also young children born of believing parents belong by virtue of the promise made to Abraham and his descendants and by which they, like their parents, are included in the covenant of God; i) Consequently, with regard to the judgment of the church, birth from believing parents (at least one) is the equivalent of what for the parents their profession of faith is; j) Therefore, according to the judgment of charity, salvation is ascribed to these children and they are regarded as elect, as their parents are regarded when they make profession of faith, and continue to be as long as they in fact do not give evidence to the contrary; . . . n) This judgment of charity could nevertheless be mistaken according to the Word. They are not all Abraham's children because they are Abraham's seed, nor are they all Israel who are of the father of Israel [cf. Rom. 9:6-7]. . .With adults, too, the same thing appears repeatedly. There are those who upon profession of faith are received into the congregation, whom one thus has to regard as fellow citizens of the saints and of the household of God. . .who nevertheless later fall away. . ." (pp173-75).

So, Vos calls this view the MAIN historical Calvinistic Reformed view. Having said that, Vos goes on to say: "there is a large objection to the first view if it teaches that all children are to be held to be regenerated and to possess the principle of faith until the opposite is apparant. . .one then cannot, with reason, pray for their regeneration as a thing that they must still receive or still need. The children themselves, in growing up, will be under the illusion that they possess regeneration, and the truth that without regeneration no one can see the kingdom of God will lose its force. It will gradually be seen in the congregation as something self-evident that whoever lies and dies within its circle is saved, since he has come into the world virtually as a regenerate person, is renewed and sanctified from his mother's womb. THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS [caps mine]." p181).

Then concluding on p187: "What is needed is more urging of the truth day by day, in the official cultivation of the children of the covenant as they grow up, and less pressing for a profession at a particular moment. But not only the requirement; the promise of God must also be pointed to. . .One can stress the obligations toward the covenant too much and overlook the giving side of the covenant too much. The one needs the other. Only presenting the obligations is deadening; only pointing to the promises causes indifference." (p187).

My best shot at a summary: 1) On the whole, we regard our children as elect until/if/when they prove otherwise, just as we do with adult members; so on the whole we view with the judgment of charity; 2) But this in no way means that every single baptized infant covenant child is actually definitely regenerated--this view he describes as dangerous; 3) Our children need both the consolation of the promises as well as exhortations; not either/or but both/and. They need to hear God has made promises to Mommy and Daddy's children too. They are part of the Covenant. But they also need to be exhorted: embrace the covenant from the heart. Prove yourself a covenant keeper, not a covenant breaker.

First post here
For what it's worth from one just recently coming from "Credo" (only) to "Paedo", the statement "judgment of charity" stands out to me the most. The question (for me at least) is not so much as if I am to "presume" one to be elect or not, as it is if I am to "treat" one as elect or not, based upon what I believe the Word of God to teach.

An aside that may assist the conversation:

"Elect" can be problematic, since it a) concerns the (secret) decree of God and b) it is possible to be elect and yet unregenerate.

We should treat our covenant children as those partaking of the promise of the covenant--- the promise that is received though faith. I think this accounts for what Vos is getting at, at least in part.

Heidelberg 60 takes both the promises and condition of the promises into account, both of which need to be held before our children (and ourselves for that matter):

"How are you righteous before God?

Only by true faith in Jesus Christ: that is, although my conscience accuses me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them, and am still prone always to all evil; yet God, without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sins, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me; if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart."

I hope this helps...

Since "election" is what God does, and is inscrutable; we should do what men are able to do; which is study belief, and evidence for faith.

We should have a robust doctrine of election. The "allergy" in some places for any discussion of that locus is indefensible, given (as Calvin correctly writes) it is a revealed truth, and is not a prying-into the hidden things of God--unless one take it beyond the limits of revelation. It should not be shut up into the realm of Christology, where it may be safely left with Jesus who alone is elect (ala K.Barth and some Lutherans). Nor should it be drawn in vaguely nationalistic or ecclesiastical lines--such as Israel or the church vs. all other nations or designations.

Again, the doctrine of individual election is a bedrock promise for divine assurance, the reason why believers may be certain that God will hold them until the end--because he has known them by name from everlasting.

But the church should aim at estimation of faith, not election. We put stock in the faith of parents who bring their children to the means of grace, and who diligently use them in view of divine promise; not presumptively, for as Abraham himself knew: while the promise is sure to believers and to their elect children (which they should hope for, and not doubt), nevertheless, "as many as the Lord our God shall call" is embedded in God's Word to him back in Genesis.

We may even put stock in the idea that an early watering of faith's seed in a child takes place very early, even in infancy before its effect could hope to be seen, with the water of baptism. What we don't do is claim to know the seed has taken the effect, and germinated, and that we know when and where faith is "come alive." Or anything at all of such a seed that is (if it be) invisible. Other than: we are make the judgment of charity.

The signs that the fields have been sown of genuine seed is no mystery. But it may be seen with the physical eye, as multi-generations of faith attend the church's ministry. So we as believing parents employ the means given us, and treat the child all along like a believer, a Christian, a disciple, like one who (at the least) is in process of having those means used to turn deaf ears into hearing ears. We don't "presume" election, regeneration, or faith; but act on the knowledge of how those elements of salvation activity function, and on knowledge of the promises.

I begin preaching a message, knowing some are hearing the words of life they have come to hear; and expecting that maybe someone like entombed Lazarus will hear the same words, which will give life to hear more of them. When a child wishes to be a communicant member, I want to know what he believes. The question, "What mean ye by this service?" is truly answered when the child posing the question has himself delivered the correct response he has learned to articulate. And more, to believe from his heart.

Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks, Mt.12:34; and (not being omniscient) we must leave it at that.

Contra_Mundum said:

We may even put stock in the idea that an early watering of faith's seed in a child takes place very early, even in infancy before its effect could hope to be seen, with the water of baptism. What we don't do is claim to know the seed has taken the effect, and germinated, and that we know when and where faith is "come alive." Or anything at all of such a seed that is (if it be) invisible. Other than: we are make the judgment of charity.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply. In simpler words, what exactly does this mean? And overall, are you saying that we treat our children as if they are Christians because of trust in God's promise and efficacy in the means of grace?

The "seed of faith" notion was one that the early Reformers ran with. I think it has use, more as a metaphor than anything; and perhaps that's the best way to interpret their intent also (though I tend to think there's some "realism" in their thinking).

In any case, it can be a helpful illustration of one purpose of God (of several)
in baptism--particularly infant baptism [this is a forum for any view's opinions]. Water is to a seed (in a non-scientific, more down-to-earth observation) as baptism is to faith-in-potentia, (so to speak). We're not going to set a rule that the water must have a blessed (or contrary) effect; or when it will have effect, or in combined ratios with other acts. We leave all that stuff up to God.

We have a limited right--limited by divine promises with attendant conditions, limited by God's sovereign disposition, limited from our standpoint by our employment or not of the means of grace--a right to expect God to do what he says. If he doesn't do what we want, we can be sure there's something off in our expectations, and not that he has reneged. We need to calibrate our expectations finely, and check ourselves as to the quality of our engagement.

I've now lived in farm country for a decade. Even when the weather doesn't cooperate, the farmers expect some crop. And they work; man, do they work. There's no presumption around here. But, they do nothing at all TO the seed other than planting and possibly some supplemental watering. They do not "coach up" the plants. They can't do anything to tell the plant to germinate, or what to become. Yet, for some reason (!) they keep getting fields of plants, and harvests. I guess they're just arrogant expectations?

Presbyterians think God said to believers, "Baptize your children, for starters." We see the church as a field of Christians. Of the littlest sprouts on the ground, is this one a wheat or a tare? I should expect a little wheatling, not a weed. I'm going to farm it like it's heading into the silos one day.