Covenant Children - children of wrath and children of God in tension

[3FU]

Hi, I am new to PB.

Just a brief background to what I am struggling with.

The Canadian Reformed and FRCNA covenant view were born in the Netherlands out of a desire to distance themselves from the theology of baptism controlled by election. Schilder and the Canadian Reformed are particularly strong in this area maintaining the idea that the congregation in the Lord is in the covenant "Head for Head." This does not mean that all are saved but that sureness of the promise is stressed so strongly that it the norm is for the children to never know a time when Christ is not theirs by faith and regeneration. When they come to the age of understanding the youth are expected to have faith in Jesus Christ which is manifest by faithful obedience. If faith and faithful obedience are not evident then the individual has broken the covenant (though not always permanently). This covenant view dominates the church, and the preaching and functionally acts the same as the covenant view in the Protestant Reformed Church. (They tend to read the HC through the lense of the third part - thankfulness) Coincidentally, the Protestant Reformed blame the FV on what they see as conditionality in the Canadian Reformed view of the covenant. Though I have not found it. I suspect that the Canadian Reformed would see the problem in the FV as a comgining of a conditional covenant with the conflation of covenant and election.

The FRCNA (Free Reformed), while in principle holding to a similar covenant view, is not historically dominated by it. Instead, the FRCNA is closely related historically and practically to the experiential view of the Netherlands Reformed. We teach our children that they need to have a new heart, that they need to be born again. The need to be drawn to Christ by a Spirit wrought knowledge of our sins and miseries. Though not necessary, a conversion experience is also desirable. The emphasis is not on our call to believe but on the need of the Spirit's work. The preaching never uses inclusivie language because we must assume that many in the congregation, even sometimes the majority, are not converted. (We tend to read the HC through the lens of the first part - misery)

As a younger man I found myself drawn to the preaching of Lloyd Jones and Al Martin with their clear call to repentance and faith. As a young Father I have come to appreciate some of the preaching from the Canadian Reformed.

My question is: is it possible to combine the clear call to faith and repentance and the accompanying view of our children as concieved in iniquity with the warmth of the covenantal claim of God on all our children and that in a sense they are the covenant children of God and are called to make God's promises their own. I am convinced that this is confessionally possible (3FU and WCF) but in the FRCNA we sometimes seem to muddle through with our preaching afraid of presumptive regeneration on the one side and a baptistic view of the church on the other. (This criticism is made out of deep love and concern for the FRCNA).

Sorry for the length. I though I needed to put the question in perspective.

Marcus DeJong - Free Reformed Churches of North America

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Call the whole congregation to repentance and faith every week by the gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm not talking about an altar call. I'm just talking about ordinary preaching, in which the gospel is shot-through every part. I'm not talking "strict evangelistic preaching" either. Every single message is not "about" the cross; but every message is "upon" the cross.

Rear-ward (or forward) reference to a conversion-moment places excessive emphasis on recognizing one's (or another's) once-for-all existential transition from death to life, form wrath to grace. Rather, it is better to understand our Christian life as one lived ideally in perpetual contact with the ordinary means of grace. There's a benefit to recognizing our present-moment as the time in which we are "being saved," and not thinking mainly or exclusively in terms of "was saved/the hour I first believed," or "will be saved." All three are biblical/Pauline notions. But the present tense language conveys my sense of redemption as the here-and-now variety.

Whether I can recall my individual starting point or not, the real moment in which I was saved (past tense) was completely outside of my experience, on a cross 2000 years ago. It began to be applied for me personally at some point, and (to speak autobiographically) I never consciously rejected what was proposed to me to believe concerning what was necessary for my eternal salvation. In my case, we could say that it began at my baptism; but in fact before that as I was brought viable under the hearing of the Word in the church for several months prior; I was brought in faith by my parents.

Because we distinguish between the administration of the covenant, and the substance, we speak of "two ways" of relating to the one covenant of grace--outwardly and inwardly. Outwardly, I can belong to the church and to the covenant as the church administers its external forms. But inwardly, I can only belong to the covenant by faith. When does that faith begin? Well, that's the work of the Spirit, which is sovereign and invisible. How closely he is working with any individual, alongside the application of the ordinary means, is beyond our ability to judge. But we do know that it is unsafe to neglect them. That is presumption, as well as presuming that they "work" if only employed with a modicum of diligence (how much is enough?).

I'm not heaven-bound because I "gave my heart to Jesus" in 1979, or 1939, or 2009. But I know I belong to my Lord (who knew me and loved me before the world's foundation) because now, today I hold on to him by faith--which is simultaneously to confess that he holds on harder to me than I do him, and "no one is able to pluck" me out of his hand. And I am being nourished weekly (daily?) in that faith by believing in what I hear (and see, and feel and taste) in the rest and worship access my God and Savior provides me through his ordinary means.

So preaching ought not be simply "Christian life" principles for the "saved," which discourse is salted with some calls to the unregenerate present to repent, so they can get on with the business of living as good citizens. It is a call to believe every word that is preached, with Christ at the center. They are his words, ultimately, and they are Spirit and Life. If I stop eating food, I'm going to depart this life sooner than later. If I stop taking spiritual nourishment by faith, to sustain my faith, I'm also going to depart this life--and perhaps the Lord is gracious and is taking me to himself before I could do more damage to myself; OR, perhaps I'm proving to myself I was never elect all along. Because it sure looked like I stopped believing during this life.

We should be preaching Jesus, his gospel, and insisting that those who hear it believe it, for now and forevermore; and the principles of life which flow from Christ and his gospel will inevitably salt our message. It isn't possible to preach Christ faithfully, and not preach the life OF faith. True faith lives, and it works. But more importantly: it repents and hopes in the power of God. Who is living in me, and doing good? "I die daily," or I'm supposed to. It's Christ who lives in me, if I'm living at all. It is keeping in step with the Spirit who indwells the believer, and produces the good work. I am alive in Christ; I am an agent of such good as is wrought by my hands; but such good is not to my credit, but to Christ.


I think what I'm trying to say is, you preach this doctrine--Repentance and Faith--to the children. And you preach it to the catechumens. And you preach it to the parents and the saints in their prime. And you preach it to the aged--so that (!) all of them will Persevere to the end. The Word, Sacrament, and Prayer are the ordinary means of grace--God's typical method of sustaining us through to the end of our race. People who profess to believe in Perseverance (the end) and and Election (the beginning) should never neglect to believe in the walk that is sustained by faith in Christ, engaged in the interests of his Kingdom, and blessed by the pleasures of his presence. "He who endures to the end, the same shall be saved."

Let's stop thinking of this business of conversion and regeneration as simply something that STARTS somewhere, and once the engine is running we can breathe a sigh of relief for a while (until something sputters). We may and should speak of them as occasions, inceptive acts. But they are more than that. Where they have taken place, truly, they cannot be undone forever. Thanks be to God, especially for children who demonstrate saving faith early. But conformity to Christ is regeneration of the whole person, in all our parts and complexity. This work is finished at last in our individual participation in the resurrection.

The preaching of the gospel is for our daily lives, 1Cor.1:18. Repent for the remission of your sins, Act.2:38. Believe and live, Heb.10:38.

 

[rbcbob]

Call the whole congregation to repentance and faith every week by the gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm not talking about an altar call. I'm just talking about ordinary preaching, in which the gospel is shot-through every part

We should be preaching Jesus, his gospel, and insisting that those who hear it believe it, for now and forevermore; and the principles of life which flow from Christ and his gospel will inevitably salt our message. It isn't possible to preach Christ faithfully, and not preach the life OF faith. True faith lives, and it works. But more importantly: it repents and hopes in the power of God. Who is living in me, and doing good? "I die daily," or I'm supposed to. It's Christ who lives in me, if I'm living at all. It is keeping in step with the Spirit who indwells the believer, and produces the good work. I am alive in Christ; I am an agent of such good as is wrought by my hands; but such good is not to my credit, but to Christ.

I think what I'm trying to say is, you preach this doctrine--Repentance and Faith--to the children. And you preach it to the catechumens. And you preach it to the parents and the saints in their prime. And you preach it to the aged--so that (!) all of them will Persevere to the end. The Word, Sacrament, and Prayer are the ordinary means of grace--God's typical method of sustaining us through to the end of our race. People who profess to believe in Perseverance (the end) and and Election (the beginning) should never neglect to believe in the walk that is sustained by faith in Christ, engaged in the interests of his Kingdom, and blessed by the pleasures of his presence. "He who endures to the end, the same shall be saved."

Bruce you are one of my favorite Presbyterians!

 

[MarieP]

Call the whole congregation to repentance and faith every week by the gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm not talking about an altar call. I'm just talking about ordinary preaching, in which the gospel is shot-through every part

We should be preaching Jesus, his gospel, and insisting that those who hear it believe it, for now and forevermore; and the principles of life which flow from Christ and his gospel will inevitably salt our message. It isn't possible to preach Christ faithfully, and not preach the life OF faith. True faith lives, and it works. But more importantly: it repents and hopes in the power of God. Who is living in me, and doing good? "I die daily," or I'm supposed to. It's Christ who lives in me, if I'm living at all. It is keeping in step with the Spirit who indwells the believer, and produces the good work. I am alive in Christ; I am an agent of such good as is wrought by my hands; but such good is not to my credit, but to Christ.

I think what I'm trying to say is, you preach this doctrine--Repentance and Faith--to the children. And you preach it to the catechumens. And you preach it to the parents and the saints in their prime. And you preach it to the aged--so that (!) all of them will Persevere to the end. The Word, Sacrament, and Prayer are the ordinary means of grace--God's typical method of sustaining us through to the end of our race. People who profess to believe in Perseverance (the end) and and Election (the beginning) should never neglect to believe in the walk that is sustained by faith in Christ, engaged in the interests of his Kingdom, and blessed by the pleasures of his presence. "He who endures to the end, the same shall be saved."

Bruce you are one of my favorite Presbyterians!

One of mine too!

 

[3FU]

Thank you Rev. Buchanan for your extensive reply. I think that I attended your church once on vacation.

I appreciate your post. I understand the visible/invisible distinction, however, I would tend to shy away from it. I believe the covenant is made with believers and their seed, period. It is out of this view that an entirely different type of covenantal preaching arises as found in the Canadian Reformed which is very beautiful. How can we combine the preaching as you describe with the warm inclusivity of this other type of preaching - or would you say your theology prohibits it?

Marcus DeJong - Free Reformed Churches of North America

 

[Guido's Brother]

Marcus,

As a CanRC pastor, I'm sympathetic to your concerns. I do try to combine the elements that you mention in my preaching. I address the congregation as "beloved brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ," and I often speak of the comfort that we have from the gospel promises as a congregation of professing believers. But I also don't shy away from preaching the call of the gospel to one and all to repent and believe. Sometimes (as I did last Sunday) I will even make explicit mention of our own confession (BC Art. 29) that speaks of hypocrites being mixed in the church. I will address them and call them to repentance and faith. As I see it, the covenant people are all recipients of God's promises. However, the contents of those promises are not automatically received. They must be appropriated with faith in Jesus Christ. That means the call of the gospel must always be clearly heard in our churches.

You can look through some of my sermons here (if you want) to get a better idea of my approach.

I hope that's helpful.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Marcus,
Thanks for visiting. Hope to see you again sometime.

Our churches are shaped in varying degrees by their history and culture. The environmental factor. Different histories have shaped our use of common terminology, like covenant. So that at its base, we share a theological root, but the branches (Scotland/Holland) have produced different patterns of light and shade. The nature of the different theological contests within our respective traditions have led to alternative orders of importance, or patterns of emphasis. We are like distant cousins, speaking different dialects of the same mother tongue. And having urban concerns vs. rural concerns that use the same basic tool in very different ways.

So, I don't know what the difference is. I don't know enough about the "covenantal" preaching, which you describe as so beautiful. Things Dutch, that look very different to a Dutchman, might look too similar for a Scot like me to distinguish. And how might a Dutchman describe the preaching in my church? With which branch would we be compared, contrasted, likened? I have no idea.

I believe in the Covenant; that concept informs my preaching. But I'm not totally self-conscious about it. Covenant is a part of my identity that I often take for granted; kind of like being an American affects my outlook every single day, but not so as I pause daily to think about how belonging to this nation has an impact on this or that decision.

I use the concept of citizenship as a correlate to covenant. My children are citizens of the Kingdom the way they are citizens of this land. Comes a time when that identity is put to the test, when a commitment one way or another is asked for. If it is from the heart, it is genuine. If it is selfish, it isn't. It would crumble under a serious challenge. But to suppose that all one had to do was meet the challenge early, and there's no need to worry about what side he'd be on for the rest of his life--well that's a bit overconfident. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe selfishness grows in the closet.

I preach to everyone that Today is the day of salvation. I use inclusive language all the time. If you like being "one of US," then you accept what I declare WE believe. You accept that the YOU ALL applies to YOU personally. And I use discriminatory language. I question, I probe, I challenge the individual heart to consider whether or not he believes. I'm happy for the ones who have known for years the joy of possessing divine salvation. His Mercies are New Every Morning! Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. I expect that for any child there on any given Sunday, it could be the first time that he intentionally accepted a divine truth as his person comfort. Or for some visitor, he comes in an unbeliever, and departs a believer. Where the Spirit brings to life, it can never fade away.

But what sort of faith would it be, if someone came once, said he believed, and never again sought the Lord? Temporary faith is unworthy of the name. What about the apostate? We say, according to 1Jn.2:19, that he never was really one of us, one of the faithful. So, I'm not about to preach complacency for those who have long-since professed faith. There is true spiritual danger in shifting any confidence from Christ to one's Christian experience, I don't care how long it has been. So, Repentance and Faith for everyone.

The church is "perfect" society (it is "saintly" and "heavenly") made up of imperfect people (sinners) on earth. Paradoxically, and wonderfully, so many of the sinners are also saints. They are becoming more saintly all the time, even when it is just impossible to really tell, day-to-day. And they are all at different levels, and none of the people the same age are at the same level either. And sometimes someone younger or newer seems to be ahead of one older and wiser in a particular area... And tomorrow, any one of them might wander away forever. No one is wearing his "elect" patch where I can see it.

So, this is why I value the internal/external distinction. I only deal with the outward administration of the covenant. I let Holy Spirit deal with the internal matter. For Presbyterians, this is the dialect we know how to speak.

 

[3FU]

Rev. Bredenhof and Rev. Buchanan, I greatly appreciate you interacting with me on this.

I suspect that I would enjoy the preaching of you both. I have recently been listening to the catechism preaching of Rev. Clarence Bouman on sermon audio and I suspect that it would be very similar to your preaching Wes. I was very blessed by it and my wife has commented that she has noticed a change in emphasis in our family devotions. However, I think that if that is all I ever listened to I would miss the preaching of someone like Bruce.

Our denomination, the Free Reformed, changed seminaries around 12 years ago from the Canadian Reformed seminary to Puritan Reformed. Theologically we are very similar to the Canadian Reformed, however in practice we are becoming ever more Puritan/Presbyterian. These two strands each have beautiful aspects that should be able to be balanced. To put it simply, a baptist could sit quite comfortably under our preaching, in fact Rev. Al Martin has been attending when he is healthy enough to do so. I don't think that this should be possible. To put it another way we recently had a baptism and the preacher expressed concern with the language of the form.

On the other hand, when I attended University with many Canadian Reformed Students they could never comprehend the need for the clear call of the gospel to unbelievers. They agreed that there were certainly hypocrits in church but they could not comprehend that there were also those who were not hyprocrits, who felt that they loved the Lord but who did not have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, men like Nicodemus.

Marcus DeJong - Free Reformed Churches of North America

 

[chuckd]

...with our preaching afraid of presumptive regeneration...

I've been reading the plethora of posts on presumptive regeneration and am kind of confused. I'm getting the feeling that, confessionally, we are not to presume anything and rather treat everyone in the visible church, children included, as people who have been called to be Christians (repentance, faith, obedience, etc).

1. Is this a correct understanding on my part?

2. I've seen the phrase "judgment of charity" - how is this different than presumed regenerated?

3. What of the language of presumed regeneration such as 1 Thess. 1:4 - "we know...that he has chosen you..."?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'd say for many people today, given the major connotation of the term "presumption" at the present hour, presumption definitely implies an attitude that goes beyond "the benefit of the doubt," or a "hope for the best" regarding all kinds of persons and circumstances.

Instead, presumption tends to push one toward attitudes of "expectation." I'd describe the difference between hope and expectation as analogous to the difference between extending grace and making demands; or between making a trial and reliance. You don't make a trial if you have no hope; but if you throw yourself on a couch you never saw before, and it collapses under you, it's pretty obvious you were thinking in terms of your "right" to have that thing meet your expectation.

Thus, a judgment of charity. Charity is the old word for "love," that hopes with grace without a sense of entitlement.

Presumption (in its extreme form--I'm aware that the word can have lesser connotations as well) also has this against it: Presuming that people (old or young) are "locked in" to their salvation (on account of election, and predestination--which are unquestionably "sure things" to the possesser) has led to attitudes, and to preaching, that is "preaching to the choir." If he is preaching to the already-saved, what do I need the gospel-word for anymore? Let him concentrate on lessons that explain the work that "real Christians" do, or the way "real Christians" look, different from the world.

Some "presumptive" preaching assumes the relevance of "gospel" only for those who need to make an entrance into the church; otherwise, preaching (in that view) should be geared toward edification, cleaning people up, keeping them cleaned up, keeping up their testimony--basically making sure that they continue to look and smell like squeaky-clean churchgoers. Where this attitude prevails, the church will not resemble an infirmary--the mending leg next to the mending head. But instead, it will be a Potemkin Village--false fronts and quiet desperation, and not a few Pharisees.

I'm not denigrating assurance here, by any means. Nor am I saying the Christian may not rejoice in election--even his own. I'm saying the gospel--what God in Christ does for us, to us, and in us all for Christ's sake and his emminence--is what Christians need in the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of their life of faith. It is what sustains and grows the believer "in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

 

[chuckd]

Thanks...really helped.