"Covenant Language" in Baptist Churches?

Status
Not open for further replies.

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
I've only attended one or two paedobaptist churches, but while I was there it became apparent in the conversations with the people and the sermons from the pulpit how commonly 'covenant language" is used, whether it be blessings of being in covenant with God or praying for their covenant children.

Coming from a baptist background, this common-place language just jumps out at you. With a baptist mindset, talk about covenant children of course is most noticeable. Anyway, in thinking about this usage of 'covenant language' in paedo churches, it strikes me, in my experience anyway, how totally lacking any such 'covenant language' was in the baptist churches I've attended. Is it just because the baptist churches I attended were dispensational?
 
Bob, I'd say that you won't have AS MUCH covenant talk in a reformed baptist church as in a paedobaptist church, but I would expect to hear at least some!

I was very familiar with the concept of covenant even as a child in a reformed baptist church. I have heard covenants mentioned in most RB churches, and have never moved in Dispensational circles so I can't comment about mainstream 'baptist' churches in the USA.

Some reformed baptist pastors I know will even go as far as to talk of covenant promises resting upon children of believers.. I hear a can of worms opening in the background here...

but...

I sort of agree...


sort of

ish

y'know

but I'm still a credo...

:book2::p
 
Originally posted by JonathanHunt
Bob, I'd say that you won't have AS MUCH covenant talk in a reformed baptist church as in a paedobaptist church, but I would expect to hear at least some!

I was very familiar with the concept of covenant even as a child in a reformed baptist church. I have heard covenants mentioned in most RB churches, and have never moved in Dispensational circles so I can't comment about mainstream 'baptist' churches in the USA.
I'm a little curious about reformed baptist churches that are more covenantal than dispensational churches. In dispensational churches, it seems the only mention of covenants is to show God's faithfulness to the nation of Israel in the past and to prove his faithfulness to them in the future. The only mention of the new covenant was to show that we're in it, but it doesn't really apply to the church in the fullest extent the way it will apply and be fulfilled in the future with the nation of Israel. Since the covenants to them don't apply to the church (except in some 'spiritual sense', its understandable why its not prominant in everyday conversations and from the pulpit.
 
Originally posted by JonathanHunt
Bob, I'd say that you won't have AS MUCH covenant talk in a reformed baptist church as in a paedobaptist church, but I would expect to hear at least some!
<snip>
Some reformed baptist pastors I know will even go as far as to talk of covenant promises resting upon children of believers.. I hear a can of worms opening in the background here...

but...

I sort of agree...


sort of

ish

y'know

but I'm still a credo...

:book2::p


:worms:


This is just the type of thinking I believe is common in many, many baptist circles, including the church I currently go to.

Ask them about baptism, and they'll tell you that their children are unsaved heathens, just as much as the wicca kid next door. Not until the pastor's kid has a verbal repentance & confession experience can he be baptized. (Can you say "pseudo-altar-call"?)

But leave baptism out of the conversation. Never bring it up. Just talk to them about how they think children should be raised:

Q. Do you pray with your children, and teach them to call God, "Father"?
A. Of course!

Q. Do you teach your kids to sing songs like, "Amazing Grace", "Power in the Blood", "Grace Greater than our Sin", "Amazing Love", etc.?
A. Of course!

Q. Do you allow your children to attend Sunday-school classes where they are encouraged to use crayons to write "I love Jesus", "Jesus loves me", etc.?
A. Of course!


You see, as long as baptism is not part of the discussion, even baptists recognize that the children of Christians have a special place in the sight of God. No one would try to convince their pagan co-worker to pray the Lord's Prayer or to draw "I love Jesus" on a piece of paper.

In short, baptists are inconsistent. (And 3 fingers are pointing right back at me, because I was baptistic until just a few months ago.)

I believe it is that inconsistency that brings about responses like those above:

I sort of agree...


sort of

ish

y'know

but I'm still a credo...


It's time to go to Scripture to resolve those inconsistencies. :book2:



I'd also like to toss in one more hypothetical Q/A for those who are not postmillenialists like me:

Q. Since most people are going to hell, and since the child of a Christian is no different than the child of the pagan next door, should Christian parents therefore assume that most of their children will go to hell?
A. Of course not! If that was the case, then why would any Christians ever want to have families at all?
 
Q. Do you pray with your children, and teach them to call God, "Father"?
A. Yes, but that is what I teach ALL children (from church and nonchurch families) , and not just my own son. I am consistent.

Q. Do you teach your kids to sing songs like, "Amazing Grace", "Power in the Blood", "Grace Greater than our Sin", "Amazing Love", etc.?
A. Never heard of them apart from the first one!

Q. Do you allow your children to attend Sunday-school classes where they are encouraged to use crayons to write "I love Jesus", "Jesus loves me", etc.?
A. No, because that would be a waste of good instructional time!:D


You see, as long as baptism is not part of the discussion, even baptists recognize that the children of Christians have a special place in the sight of God. No one would try to convince their pagan co-worker to pray the Lord's Prayer or to draw "I love Jesus" on a piece of paper.

Indeed not. But how many peoples 'pagan co-worker' is a child? In sunday school, I teach children from inside and outside the church, but mostly, praise God, from outside the church. And I teach them to sing, and to pray, just as you have intimated. I do believe that all members of christian families have a special place in God's sight, but I do not believe that God regards my son any different from the boys sitting next to him in sunday school in terms of his salvation. My son has special privileges because I am a child of God, and he is my son. The other boys don't have those.

As for getting children to write 'I love Jesus'.. what is the point of that? It would be a lie unless it was written of the child's own volition.

Do you then deny that it is right to teach Christ to the children of unbelievers? That is how it sounds to me. I catehchise the children of unbelievers.

Why ought I to glorify God?
Because he loves me and takes care of me.


Deny the truth of that to any child on the face of the earth. You can't.

In short, baptists are inconsistent. (And 3 fingers are pointing right back at me, because I was baptistic until just a few months ago.)

We've done all this to death before.


It's time to go to Scripture to resolve those inconsistencies. :book2:

What do you think I read every day... the koran? Gimme a break.

[Edited on 6-23-2005 by JonathanHunt]

[Edited on 6-23-2005 by JonathanHunt]
 
DISCLAIMER: I am not angry with you, and I do not want you to think I consider you as anything less than a dear brother in Christ. So please don't take these polemics personally. I'm hardnosed when I debate these things, but I have many more baptist friends than paedobaptist friends, so please don't take any of this as a personal attack. I'm just attacking a particular position which I think is very erroneous and detrimental to the church. But I have nothing against you yourself.


Originally posted by JonathanHunt
Q. Do you pray with your children, and teach them to call God, "Father"?
A. Yes, but that is what I teach ALL children (from church and nonchurch families) , and not just my own son. I am consistent.

Then you are teaching those kids to lie. Why would you teach a pagan to call God "Father", if you explicitly believe that Satan is still that child's father? Shame on you!

Originally posted by JonathanHunt
Q. Do you teach your kids to sing songs like, "Amazing Grace", "Power in the Blood", "Grace Greater than our Sin", "Amazing Love", etc.?
A. Never heard of them apart from the first one!

What a shame! Those are all classics that everybody should know. You've been missing out!

So, since you do know "Amazing Grace", do you teach pagan kids to sing it? If so, why would you do such a thing?

Originally posted by JonathanHunt
Indeed not. But how many peoples 'pagan co-worker' is a child?

According to your logic, what's the difference? Who cares whether the pagan is adult or not? By differing between the two, are you saying that God views them differently?

Originally posted by JonathanHunt

I do believe that all members of christian families have a special place in God's sight, but I do not believe that God regards my son any different from the boys sitting next to him in sunday school in terms of his salvation.

First of all, we are not talking about salvation, are we? We are talking about covenant membership and baptism. So even if neither of the boys are saved, that is not the point.

Second, do you really believe that your son is not any different in God's eyes regarding salvation? When you decide to have a family, are you intentionally populating hell? Or do you figure you'll just have several kids, with hopes that maybe one or two of them will be saved? Do you really think that God loves your child no more than the child He sends to parents in Tibet, who will never hear the Gospel?


Originally posted by JonathanHunt

My son has special privileges because I am a child of God, and he is my son. The other boys don't have those.

I agree. I also believe this contradicts what you have written above.

Originally posted by JonathanHunt

As for getting children to write 'I love Jesus'.. what is the point of that? It would be a lie unless it was written of the child's own volition.

And yet you do not think you are teaching your kids to lie when you teach them to sing "Amazing Grace"? Give me a break!

Originally posted by JonathanHunt

Do you then deny that it is right to teach Christ to the children of unbelievers? That is how it sounds to me. I catehchise the children of unbelievers.

There is a big difference between teaching a kid about Christ, and teaching a kid to say "Our Father . . .", and sing "Amazing Grace". I can tell *anyone* about Christ, without believing or implying that that person has any special relationship with God. But the moment I expect that person to call God "Father", or to sing "I once was lost, but now am found", then I have crossed the line, and am now considering that person in a special relationship to God.

Teach everyone that God is Sovereign, and that Jesus died for sinners.

But tell a pagan to pray the Lord's prayer, and you invite him to become a liar. Invite a pagan to sing "Amazing Grace", and you are telling him to sing something false.


Originally posted by JonathanHunt

Why ought I to glorify God?
Because he loves me and takes care of me.


Deny the truth of that to any child on the face of the earth. You can't.

Yes, I can. God does not love everybody and take care of everybody. Some people are still "children of wrath without hope and without God in the world".

Consider the child in the Gospel-deprived Tibetian home. Do you really think God loves him just as much as your kid? If so, then aren't you denying the Definite Atonement?

Or are you a "4-point Calvinist"?


Your brother in Christ,
Joseph

[Edited on 6-23-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 
No offence taken, brother.

I will respond more fully when I have thought and thunked my way through this.

Oh dear, I have a backlog of posts to respond to. I need to get a life!

JH
 
Originally posted by JonathanHunt
No offence taken, brother.

I will respond more fully when I have thought and thunked my way through this.

Oh dear, I have a backlog of posts to respond to. I need to get a life!

JH

:lol: I need to get a life too! I've made so many posts on this board today it isn't even funny. I just looked in the mirror a while ago and I think I'm starting to look like a Puritan.

Now THAT'S scary!!!! :bigsmile:
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
In short, baptists are inconsistent. (And 3 fingers are pointing right back at me, because I was baptistic until just a few months ago.)

To be human means to be inconsistent.
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I just looked in the mirror a while ago and I think I'm starting to look like a Puritan.
Now THAT'S scary!!!! :bigsmile:

Now what exactly does a Puritan look like?
 
Originally posted by Ivan
Now what exactly does a Puritan look like?
Kind of like the guy in this picture:



gleasonfam050904.jpg
 
Originally posted by blhowes
Originally posted by Ivan
Now what exactly does a Puritan look like?
Kind of like the guy in this picture:



gleasonfam050904.jpg

Well, I don't have a "stache", so I guess that leaves me out! :p

I wonder what the Puritans would think of the lifestyle and clothing of those who think of themselves as Puritan today....
 
Joseph

Can I ask some questions afresh rather than picking through some of my misunderstandings of you and your misunderstandings of me?

I hope you forgive this approach!

1. My conclusion from what you are saying is that it is only 'ok' to teach children who are in the covenant to approach God?

I ask because I wonder if we are splitting hairs? How would you teach a 'pagan' child to pray? 'Oh dread Lord, have mercy upon my reprobate pagan soul?'. How did Christ teach us to pray? What does the Lord's prayer say? Its a cop-out to say 'oh, that was only for covenant people' In my humble opinion. BTW, I have never taught anyone to pray explicitly... I pray, they copy. So, how should I pray differently in public with 'pagan' children than I do privately with my own child, who is a sinner and indifferent to the gospel?

2. The logical conclusion of what you seem to be saying is that it is 'ok' to teach a 'covenant child' to sing 'Amazing Grace' ... 'that saved a wretch like me'???? That is presumption of the highest order, if we take the singing of a hymn to be a personal affirmation of truth. Many 'covenant children' in the history of time have NOT been saved. How can we teach them to sing such a presumption?

'I once was lost but now am found'... when was a 'covenant child' lost, and when are they found?

3. And if there is no distinction between the pagan child and adult, how should we conduct our worship services when 'covenant outsiders' come in, as we hope that they will, to seek the Lord? We can't sing 'Amazing Grace', can we? Because that doesn't apply to them, does it? We can't pray from the pulpit using the name 'Father', because He isn't their father, is he? In fact, we'd better not offer Christ to all, just in case the words fall upon undeserving pagan ears.

I'm sorry, but I can smell a malodourous whiff of hypercalvinism here.

And no, I am not a four point calvinist. There was not room in the Ark for all the population of the earth. :D

Does God love my son more than some tibetan boy who will never hear the name of Christ? No, I don't think so. I believe that He shows more favour to my son, however.

JH
 
Scott

I am well aware of that discussion, but thank you for reminding me - having re-read it I have decided there is no profit in continuing this thread.

I won't post again on this topic as there is no point. Don't want to cause unnecessary ill feeling, which I definately will if I carry on.

I would refer any interested reader to the thread referenced above, in which Bruce Buchanan a few posts from the end makes a most gracious statement upon this issue.

:deadhorse:

JH

[Edited on 6-24-2005 by JonathanHunt]

[Edited on 6-24-2005 by JonathanHunt]
 
The words of Bruce Buchanan in the thread which Scott refers to above are worthy of repeating:

Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others: yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God. WCF. XVI.7

Doesn't this teach that, whatever the condition of our children, it is worse if they pray not than if they do. Better that they pray as we teach them, properly, to the Father, in the name of the Son, for things lawful, etc., than that they not pray. Let God the Holy Ghost use the means of grace--including prayer--in their lives to start them in grace and grow them in grace in his sovereign timing.

And the same is true for presbyterian covenant children, with (we would say) even greater understanding of covenant obligations, blessings and curses. God forbid, that any of my precious children should be a castaway. But whether or not, I'm still obliged to be obedient myself to God's command to teach my children to pray. With regard to the thread's main subject, I think even a baptist can argue (without violence to his theology) that he ought to teach his child to pray. Since the point can be established without appealing to CT, it's not germane to the point to club the credo-baptist for his supposed inconsistencies regarding his practice. The same problem of "storing up wrath" against the child is also part and parcel of the paedo's position. Even more so. Do I stop teaching my (baptized) kid to pray even when he acts like a total reprobate? Not if I believe my duty says otherwise. Whether God pays attention, to what degree he pays attention, and for what reasons and purposes he answers--in whole or in part or at all--these seem like subsidiary questions to the main point. The paedo, I argue, has much better and fuller, more consistent and richer theological reasons to encourage his children to pray, along with greater responsibility. That's not the same thing as saying the credo is violating some tenet of his theology. He is (say I, being full of errors in my own thinking, 1 Cor. 8:2) sailing a three-masted schooner with only one sail. Inefficient perhaps, but not the same thing as dipping the sail in the water. Which would be the case if he refused to teach his shildren to pray.

Many baptists (and presbyterians) obviously recognize their holy duty. Attack someone's family committments, and you are hitting him below the belt. Why should we assume this intensely practical point would be considered less fundamental (hence subject to less vociferous defense), than more abstract points of doctrine? Instead of saying something like, "I know this point is something you won't ever compromise/fail on, but how do you square that with...?" instead we say "Ha! you're committed to this {abstract point} and so you just can't pray with your kids, now can you? C'mon now! I know you ..." and we just turn them off to the whole conversation. Or the whole PB.

While I don't countenance the departed's reactionary response, and I think they were, on the whole, unduly sensitive, I think we've got to see how we failed to act in full charity on this topic. On the other hand, it has been eye-opening to read some of the frank admissions by a few (not all, I'm sure) of our baptist brethren (not just 'formers' like SB) as to how they view their children. And how they wrestle with some of those implications. For the life of me, I can't understand why it's so hard to recognize a third category, not merely pragmatic but biblical--one that falls outside of the supreme Categorical Distinction of Saved and Lost; something parallel to it, useful and practical.

Offered in this spirit: "And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know" (1 Cor. 8:2).

[Edited on 6-24-2005 by Dan....]
 
Bob,

"Covenant Language" in Baptist Churches?



I've only attended one or two paedobaptist churches, but while I was there it became apparent in the conversations with the people and the sermons from the pulpit how commonly 'covenant language" is used, whether it be blessings of being in covenant with God or praying for their covenant children.

Coming from a baptist background, this common-place language just jumps out at you. With a baptist mindset, talk about covenant children of course is most noticeable. Anyway, in thinking about this usage of 'covenant language' in paedo churches, it strikes me, in my experience anyway, how totally lacking any such 'covenant language' was in the baptist churches I've attended. Is it just because the baptist churches I attended were dispensational?

I know exactly what you mean. We experienced the same thing. It was like walking into an entirely different church. But to be fair it would be so if I visited a Lutheran church. But one cannot escape the deep expression and concern over their children in a faithful way and not a panic "œboy I hope/wish so" way "“ that was so very refreshing. Personally it strengthens one´s own faith to know that God really has not a possible-I cannot know-hopeful-wishful interest in my children, but a real interest in which I can come in prayer by faith/trust to Him on behalf of my children. I want to be careful here and not start a Baptist/Padeo war and we are not all without our corporate and individual struggles and gross errors, myself very much included. Furthermore, very few in history preach a strong Gospel that raises the soul so high as did Luther or Spurgeon. And Baptist churches are not very ubiquitous, so I assume it varies specific church to specific church. But the reality is there and hard to ignore.

Justification on account of Christ alone received by faith alone ferrets out all doctrinal problems and skewed views whoever makes them.

The very valid Baptist point is that one could go too far over, like Rome or the Jews, and presume salvation just because I´ve baptized my child. And I would think that this is a danger in paedo churches if we are all honest. Thus, such would really not be by faith in the sign pointing to the promise of God that one lives, but "œI did it" therefore cause or obligated God by my work. But the reverse over-reaction to this by the "œbelievers only" camp engenders the same faithlessness concerning baptism at length. Because there is a certain faith that attends the correct understanding of infant baptism. Not that the sign effects or obligates God (Rome "“ Israel, respectively) these views make the sign a faithless sign "“ these are the two poles the Baptist rightly sees as wrong. However, unfortunately rather than repair it they (me formerly) wrongly dispose of the sign entirely in over-reaction in the reverse direction. This engenders a kind of faithless view of baptism both among children and among adults (the whole rebaptism issue). Adults at length just kind of hope with hands up in the air, God will save them. Now I know that one can produce a few, very few more sound reformed Baptist churches that in spite of the baptism issue actually managed to teach faith well in spite of there view on baptism and some how mentally get around the whole "œits primarily a sign from me" thing and excuse rebaptisms (which proves it to be a faithless sign under this view and rather something that comes from me). But it evades me how admittedly, I just accept it in light of a lack of explanation.

But as a whole today most Baptist are not that way. For most average Baptist churches and members there is such a low view of baptism (albeit perfectly ironic since they demand a certain mode/timing to keep it "œhigh" in their estimation) that most do not nor could not tell you what it means. They know the mode and they know the timing and the canned, "œIt´s a profession of my faith." Emphasis on "œmy" faith not "œThe" faith. But that´s about it. So, that when they "˜look´ at their baptism (emphasis on "œtheir"), they say, "œI was baptized, hence saved." Not, "œI´ve taken God´s sign upon my body which reminds me of my need of a Redeemer and points to HIS promise to redeem and rest in Christ alone". The common language reveals the truth. The former is what engenders various forms of easy believism or the "œI did somethings" to obligate or secure God´s favor. The Later is purely looking with full assurance to the promise pointed to in the sign "“ in short faith. The perfect irony is that the "œbeliever´s only" view at length achieves in the end what they set out to avoid, faith in baptism only and this by way of "œmy decision/work/effort". That´s why the emphasis in language is on "œmy" baptism and the occasional need for rebaptism "“ because it becomes "œmy work".


Joseph,

This is just the type of thinking I believe is common in many, many baptist circles, including the church I currently go to.

Ask them about baptism, and they'll tell you that their children are unsaved heathens, just as much as the wicca kid next door. Not until the pastor's kid has a verbal repentance & confession experience can he be baptized. (Can you say "pseudo-altar-call"?)

But leave baptism out of the conversation. Never bring it up. Just talk to them about how they think children should be raised:

Q. Do you pray with your children, and teach them to call God, "Father"?
A. Of course!

Q. Do you teach your kids to sing songs like, "Amazing Grace", "Power in the Blood", "Grace Greater than our Sin", "Amazing Love", etc.?
A. Of course!

Q. Do you allow your children to attend Sunday-school classes where they are encouraged to use crayons to write "I love Jesus", "Jesus loves me", etc.?
A. Of course!


You see, as long as baptism is not part of the discussion, even baptists recognize that the children of Christians have a special place in the sight of God. No one would try to convince their pagan co-worker to pray the Lord's Prayer or to draw "I love Jesus" on a piece of paper.

In short, baptists are inconsistent. (And 3 fingers are pointing right back at me, because I was baptistic until just a few months ago.)

I believe it is that inconsistency that brings about responses like those above:


That is exactly right. The problem is that it causes confusion in the children. They are told that they are not yet Christians, yet they will do mission trips and evangelize others under the auspices that "œGod might use it" or its right to teach them such. This would not be so bad under a paedo view for at least it would be consistent. However, under the umbrella of believer´s only (the one being taught to the children in those churches) this is inconsistent and confusing, and a child might rightly wonder, "œIf I´m not part of the church, then why am I doing this work?" Or worse as I have seen, I´m working my way to heaven thinking.

I have my closest Christian brother right now sweating his son´s (8 years old) profession and desire to be baptized. He is so afraid of his son resting in "œhis baptism" and is not sure if he´s professing faith or mimicking the answers he has learned via catechisms, and afraid of him being baptized before true conversion "“ that he will not have him baptized. When pressed, "œWhat more do you need?" He admittedly has no answer. This one personally, very personally tears out my heart, because this is my dearest brother in Christ and I love his son to death.

That is the danger in the "œRegeneration CSI" dusting for finger prints. The more one requires in order to "œsee regeneration" by means of fruit, the increasing danger exponentially grows in pointing the person seeking to the very thing you are trying to prevent "“ pointing them to everything but Christ and resting on some kind of work (e.g. repentance in front of faith, "œgiving your all", Praying the prayer, profession, decision, baptismal timing, get this or that right, a well formulated profession, an experience, ad nausem). Why? Because you are either communicating to them, "œNo that´s not it" or "œNow you have finally got it right".

Faith is so simple, yet we sure do make a mess of it. Men delving into the hearts of other men seeking to determine regeneration by fruits (secondary causes), not faith mind you, is like gorillas attempting brain surgery with a hatchet "“ they are either going to seriously damage or kill the patient. Zacharias Ursinus once rightly observed that, "œNo man can indeed know or judge with certainty from second causes (fruits/effects of conversion/regeneration), or from events whether good or evil; for the external condition of men furnishes no criterion either of the favor or disapprobation of God"¦We may therefore be ignorant of our salvation, as far as it is dependent upon second causes, but we may know it in as far as God is pleased to reveal it unto us by his Word and Spirit."

Ldh
 
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
I know exactly what you mean. We experienced the same thing. It was like walking into an entirely different church. But to be fair it would be so if I visited a Lutheran church. But one cannot escape the deep expression and concern over their children in a faithful way and not a panic "œboy I hope/wish so" way "“ that was so very refreshing.
The deep expression and concern over their children was definitely a positive thing. At one of the Bible studies, one of the men expressed his faith in the promises God had made and how he thus had confidence that his children would be saved. Though hearing it as a baptist, I found myself hoping that I was wrong and that God's promises would be a reality with his children.

(I find myself thinking that way with some of dispensational teachings. I don't necessarily see in the scriptures that God has some special plan for Israel and the future and that great multitudes from the nation of Israel would be saved when the time of the gentiles is through. While not agreeing with their view of scripture, it certainly would be great if, right before the end, great number of people are saved in the nation of Israel. I'd be more than happy to be mistaken in that aspect of my eschatology.)

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
I want to be careful here and not start a Baptist/Padeo war
:ditto:
Paedos believe believers and their children are part of the new covenant and baptists believe its just believers. Whichever it is right, its pretty exciting to be a member of the new covenant. It just struck me how totally absent it was in baptist churches. It just seemed to be worth mentioning more. Again, my background is with dispensational baptist churches, so its understandable why the new covenant wasn't emphasized.
 
Joseph

What kind of distinction between children do you really want? The fact is, they are both, by nature, evil and unregenerate.

You are making a distinction between human beings that is not based on ones standing in Christ. It's something else. It's quite horrible.
 
Originally posted by Peters
Joseph

What kind of distinction between children do you really want? The fact is, they are both, by nature, evil and unregenerate.

You are making a distinction between human beings that is not based on ones standing in Christ. It's something else. It's quite horrible.

First, let me admit that I am a little peeved that you would call virtually 100% of the Reformers and Puritans "quite horrible" (not to mention Abraham himself!). Literally millions of Christians throughout history have realized the Biblical truth that God DOES differentiate between the children of believers and the children of unbelievers. According to Scripture, He always has. --- It is YOUR baptistic/dispensational/child-excluding view that is new . . . not the covenantal view. It is one thing to disagree and to be a baptist. But it is quite another thing to say that "it's quite horrible" . . . basically slapping the face of the great majority of Christian preachers/leaders/scholars throughout church history. Would you really say such a thing to the face of Cyprian, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Ames, etc.? Even better, would you say such a thing to the face of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, etc.? They certainly did distinguish between their children and the children of pagans.

Second, you are quite mistaken when you say that it is "not based on ones standing in Christ". On the contrary, Biblical Covenant Theology dictates that believers' children are included in the covenant because of their special standing in Christ. Circumcision is a sign and seal of faith in Christ. And yet God commanded that sign and seal to be given to the infant descendants of Abraham.

Was Abraham therefore being "horrible" to make a distinction in this way, between his children and the children of others? I think not! On the contrary, if an 8-day-old infant was not circumcized, then that infant immediately became a covenant breaker.

Therefore, it would be much more Biblical to say that it is "horrible" to not distinguish between the children of believers and the children of unbelievers. One is automatically in special relation to God. The other one is not.
 
As a Baptist, I teach my chidlren that it is their duty to worship God - sing, pray, listen to preaching, keep the Sabbath day holy, fear Him, etc. Worship is the natural duty of all men (Rom. 1:25; Jer. 10:7; and various Psalms) and is based on creation (Rom. 1; Ps. 33:8-9). Acceptable worship is prescribed in His word alone (WCF 21:1). Religious worship is to be given to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, through the mediation of Christ alone (WCF 21:2). Prayer is required by God of all men (WCF 21:3). If it is to be accepted, it must be offered properly (WCF 21:3). When it's all said and done, for prayer to be properly offered and worship to be acceptable to God, one must be born again.
 
Joseph brings up an intresting statement that I agree with him about but want to ask here again.

Does God love everyone?
 
Originally posted by Rich Barcellos
As a Baptist, I teach my chidlren that it is their duty to worship God - sing, pray, listen to preaching, keep the Sabbath day holy, fear Him, etc. Worship is the natural duty of all men (Rom. 1:25; Jer. 10:7; and various Psalms) and is based on creation (Rom. 1; Ps. 33:8-9). Acceptable worship is prescribed in His word alone (WCF 21:1). Religious worship is to be given to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, through the mediation of Christ alone (WCF 21:2). Prayer is required by God of all men (WCF 21:3). If it is to be accepted, it must be offered properly (WCF 21:3). When it's all said and done, for prayer to be properly offered and worship to be acceptable to God, one must be born again.

Good point. (Believe it or not, here I am agreeing with a baptist! :bigsmile: ) --- I'm glad you wrote what you did, Rich.


However, instead of going over to the half-dispensationalist baptist side of the fence, I find more consistency in the classic Reformed presumptive-regeneration camp, including the likes of John Calvin. I agree with what Rich said about prayer, and yet I do not think that the prayers of my children are repulsive to the ears of God. How can that be? I simply believe my children to be regenerate, and to have the seeds of faith planted in their hearts by the Holy Spirit. And it is on the basis of this faith that their prayers are warmly received by the Father.

In John, when Jesus reminded the Pharisees that God said, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob", Jesus pointed out that the phrase "I am the God of" implies the spiritual life of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Well, God also promises to be the God of my children. So it is implied that they have been given spiritual life as well.

I agree with Rich that only the prayers of the regenerate are properly offered. I just happen to presume my children regenerate.

Praise the Lord for His mercy and grace to His people!
 
Gabriel,

One needs to be careful hear. AW Pink has been proven wrong upon this point, and was shown as much in his time, for God could not require of His Creature the Law that He Himself is not. The Law is summed up in Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength AND love your neighbor as yourself.

What will make hell truly hell is that those who denied God will realize fully that they denied the most loving Beings of all - God.

If you say, "But regeneration is necessary then how can they be guilty". Then, Calvin has an answer for you. Basically it boils down to those that turn from God actually do so willfully thought they have done so such that they cannot turn back to Him - their guilt remains.

Blessings,

Larry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top