Covenant child/hypothetical 2

[a mere housewife]

Yesterday Ruben showed me how to look up in the Septuagint all the verses that use the same word for 'unclean' in 1 Cor 7. I was hoping that there would be some reference to uncircumcised babies to make it easier for me --that this is referring to a covenant sign; there isn't. Even the circumcised people could become unclean. All sorts of natural and unnatural processes and animals and things were defiled, and people defiled by them, and had to be made clean again for God to be associated with His people. These things can only be made clean again by sacrifice. The reference to the children of a believer being 'clean', if the word used has any significance, would seem to indicate that the sacrifice at least in some sense has something to do with these children: they can be in God's presence, associated with Him, because they have been associated with the sacrifice. Is this correct?

I'm asking this question again because I'm still confused as to how this puts children in a category that we would reject as far as the pagan goes, of having the atonement 'hypothetically' made for them and offered to them --the atonement applies to them in some sense, but not necessarily savingly or efficaciously. We can say to each of them that the benefits of Christ's sacrifice belong to them --but they must believe to secure them? Yet we reject this way of preaching the gospel in other contexts. I know I've asked this before; but I can't understand where the distinction has been in the answers. Can we try again?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Heidi,
Take a look at Ex. 4:22-26. There is some question about WHO the Lord was determined to kill--was it Moses, or his son? After all, that son had "broken my covenant" (Gen. 17:14). How? By not being circumcised. "Thanks Dad!" We don't find the term "unclean" there, but I cannot see how it is not plain.

Also check 2Chr.30:18 and context. Cleanness and consecration are basically interchangeable terms. See Ex. 12:48; cf. Lev.7:21; Num.19:20. No unclean person could participate in the feasts of the nation.

Am I addressing your interests here?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I'm asking this question again because I'm still confused as to how this puts children in a category that we would reject as far as the pagan goes, of having the atonement 'hypothetically' made for them and offered to them --the atonement applies to them in some sense, but not necessarily savingly or efficaciously. We can say to each of them that the benefits of Christ's sacrifice belong to them --but they must believe to secure them? Yet we reject this way of preaching the gospel in other contexts. I know I've asked this before; but I can't understand where the distinction has been in the answers. Can we try again?

To be perfectly honest, Heidi, and with all due respect, I think you're making this much more complicated than it has to be (not that it's by any means any easy topic). No one is saying the benefits of Christ's sacrifice apply to baptized infants in terms of atonement - unless that infant is among the elect. It's the exact same situation as adults being baptized: those that have a genuine saving faith by virtue of their election are part of both the visible and invisible church, while those who make a "hollow" profession but are not elect are part of the visible, but not invisible church.

The benefits of belonging to the visible church are chiefly fellowship and discipleship (NOT atonement or forgiveness), as Rich pointed out very well in the original thread on this topic. That is why when infants are baptized, at least in PCA churches, all members are asked to pledge to assist the parents in the Godly rearing of their child. That child is a covenant child of those believing parents and thus is entitled to the benefits of being in the visible church, and the "assumption" is that the child will one day have a saving faith of their own which seals (or grafts, as Rev. Winzer says) them in the invisible church as well as the visible.

I'm not sure how hypothetical atonement even enters into this discussion. No one is saying that infants of believing parents are atoned for and thus only need to "take advantage" of that atonement. There is nothing hypothetical about it: they are either elect or they are not (their sins atoned for or not), but as a child of believing parents, they are baptized into the visible church to partake in its blessings. Whether or not they are grafted into the invisible church as well is entirely in the hands of God's sovereignty.

 

[Christusregnat]

Yesterday Ruben showed me how to look up in the Septuagint all the verses that use the same word for 'unclean' in 1 Cor 7. I was hoping that there would be some reference to uncircumcised babies to make it easier for me --that this is referring to a covenant sign; there isn't. Even the circumcised people could become unclean. All sorts of natural and unnatural processes and animals and things were defiled, and people defiled by them, and had to be made clean again for God to be associated with His people. These things can only be made clean again by sacrifice. The reference to the children of a believer being 'clean', if the word used has any significance, would seem to indicate that the sacrifice at least in some sense has something to do with these children: they can be in God's presence, associated with Him, because they have been associated with the sacrifice. Is this correct?

I'm asking this question again because I'm still confused as to how this puts children in a category that we would reject as far as the pagan goes, of having the atonement 'hypothetically' made for them and offered to them --the atonement applies to them in some sense, but not necessarily savingly or efficaciously. We can say to each of them that the benefits of Christ's sacrifice belong to them --but they must believe to secure them? Yet we reject this way of preaching the gospel in other contexts. I know I've asked this before; but I can't understand where the distinction has been in the answers. Can we try again?

Heidi,

That's great to know how to use the LXX! Very valuable in understanding the NT writings.

It would be even more interesting if the LXX used the two adjectives Paul uses in 1 Cor 7 in conjunction with each other in the LXX: "unclean" and "holy". That may help to shed a little light on the whole matter.

As for a hypothetical atonement, I don't think this would be the issue. I know that at some level there may be disagreement among paedos on this question, but it does not seem that Scripture speaks of any kind of partial-atonement, but give us to understand that our children are actually elect, and atoned for. In other words, the revealed things would include that God will be God to us, and to our children; not hypothetically our God, and hypothetically the God of our Children, but lock, stock, and barrel - the whole 9 yards.

The church operates according to the revealed things; one of which is that our children are holy.

I hope that helps.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Scott1]

If I'm understanding your question, it helped me to understand it this way:

A "covenant child" is holy (set apart) in the sense that he is born into a position of privilege- having at least one believing parent and a community of believers (the church). Ordinarily, this will result in a child having access to being raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and all the graces associated with that. Those outside the "covenant family" and "community" ordinarily do not have this.

God makes special promises to Believers, their children, and His church and He has chosen to work His grace in special ways through these.

We may not presume upon God, even our child's salvation, but we have very real reason to hope in His promises.