Baptists and the Promises

[Peairtach]

The evidence of pre-natal conversion seems to be special and extraordinary

God can do as many pre-natal conversions as He wishes, if He wished to increase their number. I don't think this is the issue between RBs and Presbyterians.

However this is not God's exclusive plan because unbelievers are called to faith outside of believing families all the time. So, whereas the RB understands God to work through believing families ("covenant families"), the RB understands that the real power is in the Gospel itself, which is freely offered to all.

We agree that people are converted from non-believing families. But Presbyterians believe that those brought up in believing families, whether they believe or not, have a Covenantal relationship with God from birth, just as children that were engrafted into the the Covenant along with their parents had in the Abrahamic period (Covenant of Promise) and in the Old Covenant period (which Old Covenant along with the New Covenant is a phase of the Abrahamic Covenant).

Of course the power to save is in God. The Q is are there any peculiar promises regarding the children in a believer's family different from the case of an unbeliever's family. To be consistent the RB would have to deny this.

No RB who knows his theology would ever say that an unbeliever could be in covenant with God. The Old Covenant contained specific promises to a specific ethnic and religious group. It was not dependent on saving faith. The New Covenant is only made with those who believe. Are there false professors who are numbered among the ranks of the New Covenant? Yes. But that is due more to our not being able to distinguish their fraudulent profession than it is to their actually being a member of the New Covenant.

What promises of the Old Covenant are you referring to?

Your first two sentences are contradictory. You should have said, "No RB who knows his theology would ever say that an unbeliever [in the New Covenant period] could be in Covenant with God".

In the Old Covenant you surely ackniowledge, as you seem to here, that lots of unbelievers, and non-elect people were in covenant with God. How is this possible? The Covenant has inner and outer aspects like the sacraments which signify and seal the invisible benefits of the Covenant.

Abraham was in one sense in covenant with God before he was circumcised, and was on his way to Heaven. In another sense he did not enter into covenant with God until he was circumcised.

In one sense a married couple are in covenant when their hearts knit in love; in another sense they are not in covenant until they say, I do.

I'll get back with a list of some of the promises respecting children.

 

[Herald]

You're right, God can perform as many pre-natal regenerations as He wishes. He is, after all, God. But He has provided clear instruction as to how regeneration normally occurs. The preaching of the Gospel, accompanied by faith (which is all the work of grace), is how a sinner is regenerated. It is for that reason that I hold to the opinion that occurrences such as John the Baptist are not normative, just as much of the book of Acts is transitionary and not normative.

Richard, my wording was off in my previous post, but not my intent. You're right, I meant to say that no unbeliever, in the New Covenant period, could be in covenant with God. RB's believe in a completely new New Covenant, not an improved Old Covenant. By its very nature the Old Covenant was meant to become obsolete. This is part of the message of Hebrews.

Abraham's being in covenant with God is not disputed by RB's. What we dispute is the continuity of the covenant. Abraham's true covenant inclusion was on the basis of faith (Romans 4:3).

The marriage covenant is from creation. It is not a component part of either the Old Covenant or the New Covenant. What you are illustrating is the schematic of a covenant.

 

[Pergamum]

Bill, concerning the continuity of the covenant then, can you compare and contrast RB views of the continuity/discontinuity of the covenant with the Zaspel/Wells-promoted view of New Covenant Theology?

Is the basic nature of the covenant of grace then continuity or discontinuity according to RBs? (maybe this would be a good split-off post in the baptist section?)

 

[Peairtach]

By its very nature the Old Covenant was meant to become obsolete.

But as you know, the Abrahamic Covenant was established before the Old Covenant and included children and non-believers too.

RB's believe in a completely new New Covenant, not an improved Old Covenant

The greater problem for the RBs is with the Abrahamic Covenant, and how you must believe that the Abrahamic Covenant has been abrogated or transformed, as well as the Old Covenant. But the Apostles do not speak of the Abrahamic Covenant waxing old and vanishing away, because the Abrahamic Covenant is foundational to the Old and New Covenants, and Abraham is becoming the father of many nations particularly in this New Covenant era.

The Abrahamic Covenant is coming into bloom in this New Covenant phase of its existence.

There's plenty evidence in the New Testament that unbelievers can be in covenant with God, at least in the outward bond of the Covenant with some accompanying common grace influences of the Holy Spirit, when unbelievers can be called "holy" (I Corinthians 7), when it is said that they are sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Hebrews 10:29), and numerous other places.

Christ obviously views the actions of unbelievers in baptism/being baptised and in taking the Lord's Supper as covenantal when the New Testament indicates that He holds them - more or less - to what has been done to them (baptism), what they have done (the Lord's Supper).

Being baptised/taking the Lord's Supper is not nullified or made nothing by the fact that the person is an unbeliever. If the person shouldn't be baptised or shouldn't take the Lord's Supper, such anomalous covenanting makes things worse.

In a similar way a marriage between two people who don't love one another can't be ignored. It must be acknowledged by all that a Covenant has been entered into, at least outwardly. We shouldn't say that these two are not in Covenant with each other because they don't love one another and we can ignore the marriage.

The fact that they are in Covenant must be acknowledged and if it is anomalous steps must be taken to dissolve it. Ignoring the fact that covenanting has taken place or pretending it hasn't because the inner reality isn't there is not the solution.

So you see how people can be in the Bond of a Covenant with God or man, while not having the inner aspect of such a Bond of Love.

 

[Poimen]

SUMMARY: Gonna sign out, but here is a summary: The OP asked what baptists thought about baptism and the promises. It seems that in regards to baptism a big generalization would be that baptists treat baptism as a sign of what already has already happened (their belief, Romans 6:4, an outward sign of an inward reality of the New Birth) whereas presbyterians treat it as a sign of what will happen. Any promises or assurances about my children that I get from Scripture are not the baptism verses, therefore, but those verses which tell me to train up my child. And, I do pray that we all would have believing children that grow up and glorify our wonderful Lord.

I take it that you mean to hold to option (d) or are you proposing option (e): other?

Whatever you meant to say, I think it is important to point out that the 'what does baptism do' question is being foisted upon the Reformed view of baptism. It is not an act of God in the life of the child (or adult), it is a proclamation of who God is and what He has promised. Thus baptism is a 'done': what has God done in Christ and promised to the baptized individual not what He has done, will do or might do internally by the cleansing of the blood of Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit.

For the promise itself requires faith as a response in order to be a blessing. Thus for those children who are baptized and apostatize without repentance, their baptism is of no effect except as a record against them in judgment. It is not God who failed; it was man who failed. For those who believe their baptism is a sure sign and pledge of their salvation in Christ. Anything else is a misunderstanding of covenant theology.

Again, this promise that you believe that clings to baptism seems to be a very general promose, such that it adds nothing that I, a baptist, do not already have by raising my children under the Word (under the outward administration of the covenant), a general promise also being given to me that my children will believe if I teach them God's Word. If there is an extra promise as well that you've got in addition to mine, I do not see it as very effective.

Again, the Belgic confession seems to read that Christ died for the children of believers. I find this to be a leap.

"I will be your God and you will be my people" is no small thing.

 

[Herald]

Richard,

This is where the impasse comes into play. RB's see the promises of the OC (example: "I will be their God and they will be my people") are promises that are realized fully in the NC. In fact, they must be or they would have died with the ending of the northern and southern kingdoms. Abraham's promise was based on faith. The physical sign signified what should have been an internal reality (i.e. a circumcised heart). The truth is that is just old ground that is part of a systemic disagreement. There is nothing new here. Which makes me ask, what was your purpose in starting this thead?

 

[Peairtach]

Richard,

This is where the impasse comes into play. RB's see the promises of the OC (example: "I will be there God and they will be my people") are promises that are realized fully in the NC. In fact, they must be or they would died with the ending of the northern and southern kingdoms. Abraham's promise was based on faith. The physical sign signified what should have been an internal reality (i.e. a circumcised heart). The truth is that is just old ground that is part of a systemic disagreement. There is nothing new here. Which makes me ask, what was your purpose in starting this thead?

There are many more specific promises regarding the children of believers than the above.

Nothing is often totally new on the Puritan Board. I'm interested how Baptists deal with scriptural promises respecting their children since Presbyterians would view them as Covenantal but conditional. I'll get back with a shopping list of such.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

The fact that Reformed Baptists deny that children of believers should be baptised, because we're not sure they are believers...

Let's be clear. Baptists deny that children of believers should be baptized because it is never commanded in Scripture! There is no example of it in Scripture! It isn't even hinted at in Scripture!

The "promise" given to "you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" is "the remission of sins" and the "gift of the Holy Ghost" to all who will "repent and be baptized."

So, if you will respond to the gospel in repentance... the promise is for you!
If your children will respond to the gospel in repentance... then the promise is for them!
If all that are afar off will respond to the gospel in repentance... then the promise is for them!

And Baptism is the profession of that repentance! And repentance is the evidence of God's effectual "call."

It's just that simple.

We should no more baptize our children before they're effectually called and have repented than we should baptize "all them that are afar off" before they are effectually called and repent.

 

[Kiffin]

 

[Peairtach]

The "promise" given to "you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" is "the remission of sins" and the "gift of the Holy Ghost" to all who will "repent and be baptized."

Why are children specifically mentioned here then?

 

[Herald]

Why are children specifically mentioned here then?

Because it would resonate with Peter's audience that the promise wasn't just for them but also for their children and all generations following. You're reading an emphasis on children that isn't contained in the text. The emphasis is on the generational scope of "promise."

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

The "promise" given to "you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" is "the remission of sins" and the "gift of the Holy Ghost" to all who will "repent and be baptized."

Why are children specifically mentioned here then?

Peter is addressing an exclusively Jewish audience. He is contrasting "you, and to your children" (i.e. ethnic Israel) with "all that are afar off" or "μακραν" (i.e. the Gentile nations). Because the promise is no longer based on being an ethnic descendant of Abraham (i.e. "you, and to your children"), but on repentance and faith which is the new basis of Jewish identity:

Romans 2:28-29 - For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Paul speaks of Gentiles as those who are "afar off" in the same way in Ephesians:

Ephesians 2:11-22
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off (μακραν) are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off (μακραν) , and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Peter & Paul are defining Israel around Jesus Christ and one's relationship to his redemptive work which is for the Jew ("you and your children"), but also for them which are afar off - "μακραν" (i.e. Gentiles). Ethnicity is of no value in this Kingdom (Cf. Mk 3:31-35) only God's effectual "call," the fruit of which is repentance and faith.

 

[Iconoclast]

The "promise" given to "you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" is "the remission of sins" and the "gift of the Holy Ghost" to all who will "repent and be baptized."

Why are children specifically mentioned here then?

I think they are mentioned because the gospel promise is ongoing, for many generations,,you, your children[the next generation], and all who are afar off...throughout time and worldwide.

---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 PM ----------

In verse 9 he states that if any man have not the Spirit of God,he is none of His. This seems cut and dry to me. people are considered to be either in the flesh/ not saved as yet......or in The Spirit/saved

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

The New Testament repeatedly addresses itself to people for whom both threatenings and promises are necessary. Ignoring this fact distorts the counsel of God.

Pastor Winzer,
Hello, and thank you for this caution. When i offered this section of Romans 8, I was not offering it with a view to ignore the previous portions of Romans. Certainly if space would allow I would cut and paste Owen on the grace and duty of being spiritually minded from Romans 8:6, as a preface to this section.
I do not think the if is contingent in Romans 8, but it speaks of a settled condition does it not. Here is Youngs literal;
5For those who are according to the flesh, the things of the flesh do mind; and those according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit;

6for the mind of the flesh [is] death, and the mind of the Spirit -- life and peace;

7because the mind of the flesh [is] enmity to God, for to the law of God it doth not subject itself,

8for neither is it able; and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God.

9And ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God doth dwell in you; and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ -- this one is not His;

10and if Christ [is] in you, the body, indeed, [is] dead because of sin, and the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness,

11and if the Spirit of Him who did raise up Jesus out of the dead doth dwell in you, He who did raise up the Christ out of the dead shall quicken also your dying bodies, through His Spirit dwelling in you.

12So, then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh;

13for if according to the flesh ye do live, ye are about to die; and if, by the Spirit, the deeds of the body ye put to death, ye shall live;

14for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God;

15for ye did not receive a spirit of bondage again for fear, but ye did receive a spirit of adoption in which we cry, `Abba -- Father.'

16The Spirit himself doth testify with our spirit, that we are children of God;

17and if children, also heirs, heirs, indeed, of God, and heirs together of Christ -- if, indeed, we suffer together, that we may also be glorified together.


It seems as if a clear distinction is being drawn out between the justified and sanctified [adopted] and those who live after the flesh, as a settled habit. There does not seem to be a third class of persons addressed. This should be a source of encouragement to those who

1There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit;

2for the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus did set me free from the law of the sin and of the death;

3for what the law was not able to do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, His own Son having sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did condemn the sin in the flesh,

4that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

 

[MW]

I do not think the if is contingent in Romans 8, but it speaks of a settled condition does it not.

The introductory clause (protasis) lays down the condition and the consequent clause (apodosis) is made contingent on it.

 

[Peairtach]

Here are some of the promises I was thinking about from the ESV:-

I have been young, and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging for bread. He is ever lending generously, and his children become a blessing. (Psalm 37:25-26)

The children of your servants shall dwell secure; their offspring shall be established before you. (Psalm 102:28)


But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments. (Psalm 103:17-18)

Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. (Ps 128:3)

The righteous who walks in his integrity-- blessed are his children after him!(Prov. 20:7)

And a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression," declares the Lord . "And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the Lord : "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the Lord , "from this time forth and forevermore." (Isaiah 59:20-21)

"Therefore I still contend with you, declares the Lord , and with your children's children I will contend. (Jer 2:9)

"Why do you contend with me? You have all transgressed against me, declares the Lord . "In vain have I struck your children; they took no correction; your own sword devoured your prophets like a ravening lion.(Jeremiah 2:29-30)

"I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them.(Jer 32:39)

"They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever.(Ezek 37:25)

"And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction." (Malachi 4:6)

Many more texts could be added and each one would need to be properly exegeted to show how it is fulfilled in the New Covenant. But it would be passing strange if the Lord had a care for the little ones of His people in the Old Covenant, but no particular care for them any more than the heathen in the New.

Looking up such texts has reminded me of the importance of emphasising the Covenant Generational Line/Covenant Succession, but in a careful and biblically nuanced way.

The teaching that there are multigenerational but conditional covenant promises that are peculiar to the righteous (just) as they are called in the Psalms, could be overemphasised, and in the wrong way, but I fear that it is underemphasised.

---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 PM ----------

The "promise" given to "you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" is "the remission of sins" and the "gift of the Holy Ghost" to all who will "repent and be baptized."

Why are children specifically mentioned here then?

I think they are mentioned because the gospel promise is ongoing, for many generations,,you, your children[the next generation], and all who are afar off...throughout time and worldwide.

---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 PM ----------

In verse 9 he states that if any man have not the Spirit of God,he is none of His. This seems cut and dry to me. people are considered to be either in the flesh/ not saved as yet......or in The Spirit/saved

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

The New Testament repeatedly addresses itself to people for whom both threatenings and promises are necessary. Ignoring this fact distorts the counsel of God.

Pastor Winzer,
Hello, and thank you for this caution. When i offered this section of Romans 8, I was not offering it with a view to ignore the previous portions of Romans. Certainly if space would allow I would cut and paste Owen on the grace and duty of being spiritually minded from Romans 8:6, as a preface to this section.
I do not think the if is contingent in Romans 8, but it speaks of a settled condition does it not. Here is Youngs literal;
5For those who are according to the flesh, the things of the flesh do mind; and those according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit;

6for the mind of the flesh [is] death, and the mind of the Spirit -- life and peace;

7because the mind of the flesh [is] enmity to God, for to the law of God it doth not subject itself,

8for neither is it able; and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God.

9And ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God doth dwell in you; and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ -- this one is not His;

10and if Christ [is] in you, the body, indeed, [is] dead because of sin, and the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness,

11and if the Spirit of Him who did raise up Jesus out of the dead doth dwell in you, He who did raise up the Christ out of the dead shall quicken also your dying bodies, through His Spirit dwelling in you.

12So, then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh;

13for if according to the flesh ye do live, ye are about to die; and if, by the Spirit, the deeds of the body ye put to death, ye shall live;

14for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God;

15for ye did not receive a spirit of bondage again for fear, but ye did receive a spirit of adoption in which we cry, `Abba -- Father.'

16The Spirit himself doth testify with our spirit, that we are children of God;

17and if children, also heirs, heirs, indeed, of God, and heirs together of Christ -- if, indeed, we suffer together, that we may also be glorified together.


It seems as if a clear distinction is being drawn out between the justified and sanctified [adopted] and those who live after the flesh, as a settled habit. There does not seem to be a third class of persons addressed. This should be a source of encouragement to those who

1There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit;

2for the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus did set me free from the law of the sin and of the death;

3for what the law was not able to do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, His own Son having sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did condemn the sin in the flesh,

4that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

We're not saying that you don't need to be justified to be truly adopted into God's family. We're saying that God has a special place in His Covenantal administration for His people's families. But are you forced into denying even this, lest you come to close to infant baptism?

There's not a "third class" addressed here. But elsewhere in Scripture there is, and we should take a full-orbed approach to Scripture. E.g. In Jesus' parable of the Vine, there are (1) those outside the Vine, (2) those in the Vine but producing no fruit, and (3) those in the Vine and producing fruit.

 

[Iconoclast]

I do not think the if is contingent in Romans 8, but it speaks of a settled condition does it not.

The introductory clause (protasis) lays down the condition and the consequent clause (apodosis) is made contingent on it.

Yes Matthew you are right. I think I did not use the right word when i tried to express my thought.
I should have said the if is not a conditional if... The passage is speaking of only two realms, the flesh and spirit. We are found in one or the other......The life is either a self life,carnal,fleshly, leading to death, or alive spiritually bringing forth fruit to God's glory.
Although I used the wrong word in my post...[which would lead to me arguing against my own thought... The truth of the passage stands nevertheless.

Richard, your example here is again why we would differ on our understanding;

There's not a "third class" addressed here. But elsewhere in Scripture there is, and we should take a full-orbed approach to Scripture. E.g. In Jesus' parable of the Vine, there are (1) those outside the Vine, (2) those in the Vine but producing no fruit, and (3) those in the Vine and producing fruit.

Even if you see what looks like a "third class" in this parable, upon closer examination we must agree that there are only two persons .

More often than not this third class is made up of young persons having grown up in a believing home, or new recently professed converts to the faith.
Time, the flesh, and the devil will manifest what condition these fruitless individuals are.
1]unsaved ,never in the kingdom
2]unsaved but yet to be savingly drawn to Christ
3] newly saved but not mature enough to show much or any evidence of of regeneration
How do you see the promise as I mentioned previously as contained in Acts 2, and again in Acts 13.i would like your response to what I posted on that earlier, if you have time to do so .Thanks

ps.Thanks for posting the list of promises regarding the fact the God many times does work through families. i have no desire to oppose any such promise.I just want to make sure that it is God who brings the promise to pass in the life of each individual he unites to His body the church

 

[Peairtach]

Anthony

Some Baptists see the promise as primarily The promise made by the Father to the Son,in Psalm 16.
The promise is fulfilled in the resurrection,and to all who are called to salvation and saving union IN Jesus Christ. This explanation given by Peter in Acts 2 is also repeated in Acts 13 without the specific mention about the children acts 13:30-39.

Hello, Anthony. Nice to interact with our Baptist brothers.

This question of who should be baptised is partly a question of how we believe God wants us, fallible human beings, to adminster the Covenant of Grace.

Speaking extremely hypothetically, if we knew infallibly who the elect were, who Christ died for and rose again for, we would be in a very different position. Maybe God would ask us to baptise the elect only, either when they were born or when they believed.

We don't know who the elect are. The Baptists don't try to baptise the elect but those that show evidence of faith, which faith may subsequently disappoint or not. The baptists don't believe they have to find out who the elect are, which is impossible, or even to know infallibly that someone else is regenerate, which it is also not possible to know infallibly, but just that they have a credible profession of faith.

Presbyterians on the other hand don't dispute that the Covenant of Redemption is with the elect, but for the purposes of the administration of the Covenant of Grace, Presbyterians believe that God wants us to administer the Covenant slightly more broadly to those adults that have a credible profession of faith and their children.

Baptists believe that when God places a branch in His Vine, the twigs on the branch should not be put in with it. Presbyterians believe that God wants the twigs on the branch to be placed in the Visible Church, too.

Presbyterians know that the Covenant in its inner-life will only be made with the elect, but we believe, taking the Scriptures together, that this is the way God in His wisdom wants us to administer the Covenant, and that it is therefore a better way to administer it than the Baptistic view.

The New Covenant is a phase of the Abrahamic Covenant. In the administration of it God's elders cannot infallibly know who the elect Children of the Promise (Isaac) are who died and rose with Christ, and who are the reprobates (Ishmael/Esau).

It's none of their business to try to find out who the elect are i.e. who are going to prove to be the "real" members of the Covenant of Grace, i.e. who are members of the Covenant of Redemption, but it is their duty to administer the Covenant of Grace according to the Biblical pattern.

Baptists are administering the Covenant of Grace too narrowly.

The Covenant of Grace has a duality about it, as does the Church on Earth, as do the sacraments, and as does the illustrative covenant of marriage.

 

[MW]

We are found in one or the other.

Yes; and "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints" (Romans 1:7) were given necessary warnings and promises on the basis of the fact that in reality they belonged to one or the other even while the judgment of charity looked upon them and treated them as belonging to the realm of the Spirit. The new covenant administration does not do away with the reality of false professors, the real possibility of apostasy, and the instrumental use of warning to terrify the wicked and awaken the righteous.

 

[Herald]

Here are some of the promises I was thinking about from the ESV:-

I have been young, and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging for bread. He is ever lending generously, and his children become a blessing. (Psalm 37:25-26)

The children of your servants shall dwell secure; their offspring shall be established before you. (Psalm 102:28)


But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments. (Psalm 103:17-18)

Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. (Ps 128:3)

The righteous who walks in his integrity-- blessed are his children after him!(Prov. 20:7)

And a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression," declares the Lord . "And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the Lord : "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the Lord , "from this time forth and forevermore." (Isaiah 59:20-21)

"Therefore I still contend with you, declares the Lord , and with your children's children I will contend. (Jer 2:9)

"Why do you contend with me? You have all transgressed against me, declares the Lord . "In vain have I struck your children; they took no correction; your own sword devoured your prophets like a ravening lion.(Jeremiah 2:29-30)

"I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them.(Jer 32:39)

"They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever.(Ezek 37:25)

"And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction." (Malachi 4:6)

Many more texts could be added and each one would need to be properly exegeted to show how it is fulfilled in the New Covenant. But it would be passing strange if the Lord had a care for the little ones of His people in the Old Covenant, but no particular care for them any more than the heathen in the New.

Looking up such texts has reminded me of the importance of emphasising the Covenant Generational Line/Covenant Succession, but in a careful and biblically nuanced way.

The teaching that there are multigenerational but conditional covenant promises that are peculiar to the righteous (just) as they are called in the Psalms, could be overemphasised, and in the wrong way, but I fear that it is underemphasised.

---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 PM ----------

The "promise" given to "you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" is "the remission of sins" and the "gift of the Holy Ghost" to all who will "repent and be baptized."

Why are children specifically mentioned here then?

I think they are mentioned because the gospel promise is ongoing, for many generations,,you, your children[the next generation], and all who are afar off...throughout time and worldwide.

---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 PM ----------

In verse 9 he states that if any man have not the Spirit of God,he is none of His. This seems cut and dry to me. people are considered to be either in the flesh/ not saved as yet......or in The Spirit/saved

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

The New Testament repeatedly addresses itself to people for whom both threatenings and promises are necessary. Ignoring this fact distorts the counsel of God.

Pastor Winzer,
Hello, and thank you for this caution. When i offered this section of Romans 8, I was not offering it with a view to ignore the previous portions of Romans. Certainly if space would allow I would cut and paste Owen on the grace and duty of being spiritually minded from Romans 8:6, as a preface to this section.
I do not think the if is contingent in Romans 8, but it speaks of a settled condition does it not. Here is Youngs literal;
5For those who are according to the flesh, the things of the flesh do mind; and those according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit;

6for the mind of the flesh [is] death, and the mind of the Spirit -- life and peace;

7because the mind of the flesh [is] enmity to God, for to the law of God it doth not subject itself,

8for neither is it able; and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God.

9And ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God doth dwell in you; and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ -- this one is not His;

10and if Christ [is] in you, the body, indeed, [is] dead because of sin, and the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness,

11and if the Spirit of Him who did raise up Jesus out of the dead doth dwell in you, He who did raise up the Christ out of the dead shall quicken also your dying bodies, through His Spirit dwelling in you.

12So, then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh;

13for if according to the flesh ye do live, ye are about to die; and if, by the Spirit, the deeds of the body ye put to death, ye shall live;

14for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God;

15for ye did not receive a spirit of bondage again for fear, but ye did receive a spirit of adoption in which we cry, `Abba -- Father.'

16The Spirit himself doth testify with our spirit, that we are children of God;

17and if children, also heirs, heirs, indeed, of God, and heirs together of Christ -- if, indeed, we suffer together, that we may also be glorified together.


It seems as if a clear distinction is being drawn out between the justified and sanctified [adopted] and those who live after the flesh, as a settled habit. There does not seem to be a third class of persons addressed. This should be a source of encouragement to those who

1There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit;

2for the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus did set me free from the law of the sin and of the death;

3for what the law was not able to do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, His own Son having sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did condemn the sin in the flesh,

4that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

We're not saying that you don't need to be justified to be truly adopted into God's family. We're saying that God has a special place in His Covenantal administration for His people's families. But are you forced into denying even this, lest you come to close to infant baptism?

There's not a "third class" addressed here. But elsewhere in Scripture there is, and we should take a full-orbed approach to Scripture. E.g. In Jesus' parable of the Vine, there are (1) those outside the Vine, (2) those in the Vine but producing no fruit, and (3) those in the Vine and producing fruit.

Richard,

It was nice of you to take the time to research some of the covenantal promises made to Israel. It should come as no surprise that RB's agree, and even affirm, each of these promises. RB's are not anti-covenantal. It's just that we understand the scope and emphasis of certain covenants and do not see a continuation of all OT covenants in the New Covenant age. In the passages you referenced there are multi-generational promises made to the nation of Israel. These promises were contingent; based on Israel's obedience. The Old Covenant was made with Israel and Israel alone. Some of the promises you quoted, such as Psalm 103:17-18, were made to Israel but contain universal truth that transcend the Covenants. Surely in the New Covenant the Lord's steadfast love is displayed towards those who keep God's commandments, with the most obvious commandment being believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. But even in that passage the emphasis is on, "to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments." In the NC age we are not keeping the Old Covenant or the Law. Christ is our covenant keeper, and doing his commandments is to believe on Him.

The reference to children in Jeremiah 2:29-30 once again has to do with the multi-generational aspect of the Old Covenant. The promises, and the cursings, of the Old Covenant extended to the nation of Israel from generation to generation, until Christ (although some may argue it ended prior to Christ). In the Jeremiah passage we see a reckoning for sin because of the collective disobedience of the nation of Israel. There are many other passages like this in the OT. These passages emphasize the covenant responsibilities, and the failures thereof, of Israel. They pertain to Israel. Now, there are some promises in the OT, under the Old Covenant, that are future promises; not contingent on the obedience of the nation when those promises where written. The promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 come to mind. However, the nation of Israel, and religious Judaism, became obsolete upon the advent of Christ (Heb. 8:13).

Many more texts could be added and each one would need to be properly exegeted to show how it is fulfilled in the New Covenant. But it would be passing strange if the Lord had a care for the little ones of His people in the Old Covenant, but no particular care for them any more than the heathen in the New.

But this is not a biblical argument. I can respond by stating that the majority of conversions to the Christian faith do not occur within Reformed churches, or even believing churches. This means that the majority of new Christians are coming from unbelieving households. Should we therefore conclude that God had no particular care for those that are saved out of unbelieving households? Obviously that would be doing violence to the scripture and assigning suspect motives to God. The truth is that God does display particular care of his, yet, uncalled sheep. That care is the Gospel.

 

[Peairtach]

In the passages you referenced there are multi-generational promises made to the nation of Israel. These promises were contingent; based on Israel's obedience. The Old Covenant was made with Israel and Israel alone.

So these passages have nothing to do with the Abrahamic Covenant which preceded the Old Covenant and upon which the Old Covenant was based and which Abrahamic Covenant was not extinguished during the Old Covenant period nor today? God's peculiar interest in and promises regarding the children of his people extend from the Covenant He made through Moses at Sinai to the Covenant He made through Christ, but not before or after?

Before Moses God had no particular interest in the children of His people more than heathens?

After Christ God has no particular interest in the children of His people more than heathens?

From Moses to Christ God does have a peculiar interest in the Jews, and of those the children of the righteous (just) among His Covenant people, rather than the children of the wicked among His Covenant people, as it indicates in the Psalms and elsewhere?

You might also remember that "Israel" has not been dispensed with in the New Covenant. We are all engrafted into Israel and all those who have the internal covenant life (Jews and Gentiles) are called "the Israel of God".

Christ is incorporating all nations (Jews and Gentiles) into this spiritual Israel.