Covenant Promise Vs Unconditional Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Hello Mark,
You wrote:-
But who is the promise made to ? Believers and their seed.
So, in general, God calls His elect from godly families. This is not new teaching.
It's not new, but it is wrong. It was not even true in the Old Testament as Judah, Eli, Samuel, David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Josiah could tell you. Much less is it true in the N.T. 'For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion"' (Rom 9:15; cf. Exod 33:19 ).


Scott wrote:-
offspring! God did not elaborate on the statement. He did not direct the saints to dissect the offspring.
Well, actually He did, unless The Lord Jesus Christ is not God, John the Baptist is a liar and Paul is not a saint!

John 8:39, 44. "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.......You are of your father, the devil.

Matt 3:9. "And do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

Gal 3:7. 'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.'

The Seed of Abraham is The Lord Jesus Christ, and those who are united to Him by faith (Gal 3:16, 29 ). Of course it is right and good and beneficial to teach one's children about the Lord (Deut 4:7-10 etc), but that didn't work for Samuel (1Sam 8:1-5 ). The most important thing we can do for our children is that which we do upon our knees. "We gave them life in the flesh; you, Lord, must give them life in the Spirit."

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

Martin,
I have no problem reconciling those passages; you make it sound as if the paedobaptist disregards these passages. You quote them over and over again to the point of it being painful. We do not ignore these passages. Reconciling them is harmonized by utilizing the whole bible, the new testament defined by the old and non dispensationalizing any of Gods decree's and commands.

Exo 32:11 But Moses implored the LORD his God and said, "O LORD, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
Exo 32:12 Why should the Egyptians say, 'With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people.
Exo 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your seed, and they shall inherit it forever.'"

As Randy as well has pointed out, the promise and the statement 'seed' does not exclude. You make it sound as if that should dilineate our faith in tyha promise. Surely Calvin et. al. knew this as well and in their writings they do not derail the promises to the generations of Abraham.
 
Scott. Look here. Is there a family and children following in the covenant of Promise.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph......
 
Originally posted by mattbauer
Well, my first thread so here goes nothing. A question i have been wondering about since I first began to study the Bible a year ago.

If it is an unconditional elect, [that is not based upon anything we do to merit the salvation that God has bestowed upon us (elect)] then how can there be a covenant promise to the children of regenerate parents? Would this not make that Child's salvation conditional upon the parent's faith and make it contingent to the prior regeneration of one if not both? If so how do we differ on the decree of God. Being supralapsarian i do not see a difference in the order of the decrees, So when were they elected to salvation then the parents without anything being forseen by God?

ANY input is much appreciated. I am not looking for a debate, i have no stance on this. Just looking for a little guidance! Grace and peace.

The first thing to deal with is the nature of the "promise" and how it works in relation to election.

Election is unconditional. Election deals with what has been decreed from eternity and there is a set number known only to God.

The promise is based on the Covenant of Grace "wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe".

One of the key things to consider is that the CoG is how God has worked out what He has decreed in time and space,ie; His providence. (check out Matt's papers in APM regarding the Covenant of Redemption and Covenant of Grace and how they work together).

So in relation to the Decrees, the promise is conditional for the elect and non-elect in the church. But the Spirit provides all that is needed to fulfill the conditions for the elect.
 
Originally posted by mattbauer
Well, my first thread so here goes nothing. A question i have been wondering about since I first began to study the Bible a year ago.

If it is an unconditional elect, [that is not based upon anything we do to merit the salvation that God has bestowed upon us (elect)] then how can there be a covenant promise to the children of regenerate parents? Would this not make that Child's salvation conditional upon the parent's faith and make it contingent to the prior regeneration of one if not both? If so how do we differ on the decree of God. Being supralapsarian i do not see a difference in the order of the decrees, So when were they elected to salvation then the parents without anything being forseen by God?

ANY input is much appreciated. I am not looking for a debate, i have no stance on this. Just looking for a little guidance! Grace and peace.

Unconditional election and the promise "to you and to your children" are not contradictory. The relationship of the physical liniage to election is that of a means to an end. Consider Westminster on "The Eternal Decree":

WCF III:
VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. [76] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[77] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[78] and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation.[79] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[80]


Being born into a Christian home - wherein one is raised in a church wherein the gospel is preached; wherein one is diligently taught and admonished by his/her parents (or grandparents) concerning the law and the gospel - this is a means to an end for God's people.

This does not mean that all children born into Christian homes who are daily admonished and who frequently hear the gospel preached will be saved. Nor does it mean that people who are not born into Christian homes have no hope. Only it means that the atmosphere of the Christian home will be a means of grace to elect child (and a means of further damnation to the non-elect).

God has chosen His children from all eternity, unconditionally, yes. But he also ordained the means by which He would outwardly and effectually call them to Himself.

I am personally blessed to have had grandparents and parents who were believers and who admonished me that I might look to their God to find refuge. I pray that my child also will look to Christ for refuge. In the promise I have hope, and eagerly await the day that my daughter "improves" her baptism and seeks refuge in the God of her fathers.



[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Dan....]
 
Thank you Dan, Mark, Scott & Wayne.

Some quotes to ponder:

"œIf anyone should ask, Why does God not convert all the children of the godly, since they cannot follow the holy example of their fathers without his mercy, we reply, that he will not bind or restrict his mercy to any single individuals included among the posterity of the righteous; but will reserve his election free to himself, that as he converts and saves some from the posterity of the wicked, so he will leave some of the posterity of the righteous in their natural corruption and misery which all deserve by nature, and this he does, that he may show that his own mercy is free, as well in choosing the posterity of the godly as the posterity of the wicked. Again: God does not convert all the posterity of the godly, because he has not bound himself to bestow mercy on all, or the same benefits on all the posterity of the godly."

-Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, page 535.

"Election and the Line of the Covenant "“ Not seldom it has been thought that election is of a sporadic nature so that one is elected from this family and another from that family, "one from a city and two from a generation" irrespective of family or city or generation. The fact, however, that the Lord has ever built up His Church from the seed of the Covenant teaches that as a rule predestination follows a definite course, proceeding along the line of the Covenant, so that as a rule those are elected who are participants in the Covenant. This is encouraging for the Covenant members, but, as we see from Scripture and experience that there are exceptions to this rule, it gives no ground for false assurances."

William Heyns "Manual of Reformed Doctrine" page 44

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by poimen]
 
Hi Randy,
You asked:-
Are you saying that I have no hope in Christ having elected any of my children or the children of my fellow believers?

Where have I said that? There is every hope. 'The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.'

What I say is that there is no ground to presume that because you are a Christian, your children will be Christians too. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh' and our children are a constant reminder of that. You never have to teach a child to be selfish, untruthful or disobedient; they have that right from the womb. The only thing that you may presume about them is that they are 'brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin.'

However, if we follow the instructions of the Bible and teach and catechise our children, set them an example of godly living and pray for them constantly, then we have legitimate reason to hope that God will show them mercy and lead them to Himself.
Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

I asked Mark above what the promise is and he didn't reply. The promise is that if they repent, trust in Christ for remission of sins and are baptized, they will be saved (v38 ). That promise certainly holds good, not just for our children, but for everbody else's. 'As many as the Lord our God shall call.'

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 
Hello Scott,
You wrote:-
Martin,
I have no problem reconciling those passages; you make it sound as if the paedobaptist disregards these passages. You quote them over and over again to the point of it being painful. We do not ignore these passages.
Well, it seems to me that you do ignore these passages, and I can tell you that I shall go on repeating them until you deal with them. In this very post you have paid absolutely no attention to them and instead have trotted out the verses from Exodus 32.

You continued:-
Reconciling them is harmonized by utilizing the whole bible, the new testament defined by the old and non dispensationalizing (sic) any of God's decrees and commands.
I agree that we must compare Scripture with Scripture and use the whole Bible, but we must interpret the OT in the clearer light of the New. Otherwise Paul is made a liar. Either Christ is the Seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made or He isn't. Which is it?

You quoted:-

Exo 32:13. "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your seed, and they shall inherit it forever.'"

Where do we find this seed of Abraham? In the physical seed? Is it that bunch of Christ-haters living in Israel at the moment, and persecuting the tiny community of believers there? Are they the orthodox Jews who inhabit parts of New York, London and elsewhere who also hate Christ? Maybe they are a little part of it. Maybe God will do a wonderful work upon the Jews. But they are not the seed of Abraham that God promised and Moses pleaded for. Not enough of them.

'After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the thone, and to the Lamb"...........These are they who come out of the great tribulation and washed their clothes in the blood of the Lamb"' (Rev 7:9-10, 14 ).

These are not the physical children of Abraham (though some are that as well), but the children of promise, saved by grace through faith. For as it is written: 'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham (Gal 3:7 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin



[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 
Martin,
Let me get this straight: Are you charging all paedobaptist, i.e. Calvin et. al. with total disregard for the passages you cite? Thats what it sounds like, we all ignoring those passages. :lol:
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Hi Randy,
You asked:-
Are you saying that I have no hope in Christ having elected any of my children or the children of my fellow believers?

Where have I said that? There is every hope. 'The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.'

What I say is that there is no ground to presume that because you are a Christian, your children will be Christians too. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh' and our children are a constant reminder of that. You never have to teach a child to be selfish, untruthful or disobedient; they have that right from the womb. The only thing that you may presume about them is that they are 'brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin.'

However, if we follow the instructions of the Bible and teach and catechise our children, set them an example of godly living and pray for them constantly, then we have legitimate reason to hope that God will show them mercy and lead them to Himself.
Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

I asked Mark above what the promise is and he didn't reply. The promise is that if they repent, trust in Christ for remission of sins and are baptized, they will be saved (v38 ). That promise certainly holds good, not just for our children, but for everbody else's. 'As many as the Lord our God shall call.'

Grace & Peace,

Martin

:up:
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by pastorway
not ignoring, just mis-exegeting......

:bigsmile:

All paedobaptists? Thats bold of you. :cool:

do you not believe the same of all Baptists??

If your interpretation of those verses makes you a paedo then all who use that hermenueitc and arrive at the false conclusions of paedobaptism are in error.

It is just that simple.

Thankfully though, we have Christ in common so this in not a big deal!

Phillip the Pharmacated
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Martin,
Let me get this straight: Are you charging all paedobaptists, i.e. Calvin et. al. with total disregard for the passages you cite? Thats what it sounds like, we all ignoring those passages. :lol:

Scott, I'm not discussing with Calvin (or al :lol: ), I'm discussing with you. Stop running for cover to Calvin, be a Berean and use your God-given, Spirit-inspired mind to look at what the Scriptures say and interact with the ones I quoted. That's all I'm asking.

I have Calvin's commentaries at home. I can read what he thinks any time. I want to know what you think, please, and I want you to back it up with Scripture, not Calvin.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 
Originally posted by pastorway
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by pastorway
not ignoring, just mis-exegeting......

:bigsmile:

All paedobaptists? Thats bold of you. :cool:

do you not believe the same of all Baptists??

If your interpretation of those verses makes you a paedo then all who use that hermenueitc and arrive at the false conclusions of paedobaptism are in error.

It is just that simple.

Thankfully though, we have Christ in common so this in not a big deal!

Phillip the Pharmacated

True; touche! :p
 
Only it means that the atmosphere of the Christian home will be a means of grace to elect child (and a means of further damnation to the non-elect).

So what is the reason for infant baptism. I understand the paralell of circumcision to baptism and the reason for that. But what actually happens at infant baptism then? Is it apart from grace and rather a dedication in light of what you say? Or am i misunderstanding? I mean no offense of course.

Grace and peace.
 
There is no ordinary possibility salvation outside of the Church (WCF XXV. ii). If we don't raise our children as Church members, telling them they're dirty pagans that need to repent, then don't cross your fingers to see them converted and remain true to the faith. If you raise your children as baptised Church members, teaching them the ways of the Lord and instructing them and patterning for them the ways of faith and repentence, the promise that Peter mentions is very much a reality for them, because they are born into the kingdom of God and given all the benefits over and beyond pagan children in the hope of salvation. Are they Christians or should they be called such? I don't think so. But they are part of the Church and given the promise and hope of salvation by faith in Christ alone, something pagan children don't have growing up (by ordinary possibility).
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
There is no ordinary possibility salvation outside of the Church (WCF XXV. ii). If we don't raise our children as Church members, telling them they're dirty pagans that need to repent, then don't cross your fingers to see them converted and remain true to the faith. If you raise your children as baptised Church members, teaching them the ways of the Lord and instructing them and patterning for them the ways of faith and repentence, the promise that Peter mentions is very much a reality for them, because they are born into the kingdom of God and given all the benefits over and beyond pagan children in the hope of salvation. Are they Christians or should they be called such? I don't think so. But they are part of the Church and given the promise and hope of salvation by faith in Christ alone, something pagan children don't have growing up (by ordinary possibility).

Gabe,
Our children are indeed Christians. They are part of the visible church and are disciples of Christ. The term Christian denotes disciple, not a validation of regeneration or conversion.

I know you know this:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

11. Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 16:14-15
12. Gen. 17:7-14; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; Matt. 19:13; 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; I Cor. 7:14
 
Originally posted by pastorway
thank God that He saves people who are not born into Christian homes or raised in the church!!!!

:banana:

Amen Phillip!

You'd agree though that God does work within the family unit in a larger fashion-no?

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
There is no ordinary possibility salvation outside of the Church (WCF XXV. ii). If we don't raise our children as Church members, telling them they're dirty pagans that need to repent, then don't cross your fingers to see them converted and remain true to the faith. If you raise your children as baptised Church members, teaching them the ways of the Lord and instructing them and patterning for them the ways of faith and repentence, the promise that Peter mentions is very much a reality for them, because they are born into the kingdom of God and given all the benefits over and beyond pagan children in the hope of salvation. Are they Christians or should they be called such? I don't think so. But they are part of the Church and given the promise and hope of salvation by faith in Christ alone, something pagan children don't have growing up (by ordinary possibility).

Gabe,
Our children are indeed Christians. They are part of the visible church and are disciples of Christ. The term Christian denotes disciple, not a validation of regeneration or conversion.

I know you know this:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

11. Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 16:14-15
12. Gen. 17:7-14; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; Matt. 19:13; 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; I Cor. 7:14

I thought we were clarifying ourselves against the viewpoint of FV proponents? In that case, yes, my children would be Christians, members of the Church and kingdom of God.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Gabe,
Our children are indeed Christians. They are part of the visible church and are disciples of Christ. The term Christian denotes disciple, not a validation of regeneration or conversion.

How or would you distinguish your articulation here to that of Douglas Wilson's explanation of a Christian "'Reformed Is Not Enough'"?
 
Originally posted by poimen
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Gabe,
Our children are indeed Christians. They are part of the visible church and are disciples of Christ. The term Christian denotes disciple, not a validation of regeneration or conversion.

How or would you distinguish your articulation here to that of Douglas Wilson's explanation of a Christian "'Reformed Is Not Enough'"?

Daniel,
Given my age, would you quote Wilson for me please? :bigsmile:
 
John 3:6. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'

The division here is not flesh = human body Vs. Spirit/spirit. Rather, and we know this because rebirth is the subject (secret only the Holy Spirit sovreignly knows we might clearly add), the division is between the flesh that is the fallen Adam (all of us) & sin nature which seeks to work its way back to God Vs. the Spirit/spirit. The flesh, the fallen Adam, which is crucified with Christ. To cease sinning, that is vainly trying to attempt to "œplease" Him in ANY way, IS to slaughter the old Adam on the cross & simultaneously trust in Christ alone. And that is what it means to be crucified & suffer with Christ. The suffering is the old man dying to his way, the way of Cain. And indeed it is painful to the old Adam in us, so painful we act as the two thieves as we approach it.

Thus, this verse gives no support what-so-ever against promises to earthly children or any one for that matter, I.e., flesh = human body. If you are going to maintain this, though such grossly misses the passage, then you can NEVER offer the Gospel, which is promissory by its essential nature to ANY pagan. As a matter of fact you could not freely offer the Gospel to any one as Gospel, since all men are indeed flesh = human body. As a matter of fact you must blaspheme Christ & say, "œyou must work for or purchase the Gospel. (since you set it up to not be a free promise of grace)." Which of course is no Gospel at all & a damned sermon/message according to Paul.

L
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by poimen
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Gabe,
Our children are indeed Christians. They are part of the visible church and are disciples of Christ. The term Christian denotes disciple, not a validation of regeneration or conversion.

How or would you distinguish your articulation here to that of Douglas Wilson's explanation of a Christian "'Reformed Is Not Enough'"?

Daniel,
Given my age, would you quote Wilson for me please? :bigsmile:

"A Christian, in one sense, is anyone who is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by an authorized representative of the Christian church... according to the Bible, a Christian is one who would be identified as such by a Muslim. Membership in the Christian faith is objective- it can be photographed and fingerprinted."

(Pages 19 & 21)

He does not deny that, in another sense, one is must be or is a Christian in an inward sense, regenerated, converted etc.

So I am asking if you hold to a two-fold sense of being a Christian, or only one sense of being a Christian?

To be open and honest, this is my position: I would want to raise my children as Christians, believing that they are Christians, even though this may not turn out to be the case. But I would not hold to a two-fold sense of being a 'Christian.' In regards to the covenant/church yes (administration/essence; visible/invisible) but not the word Christian.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/WilsonDouglasReformedNotEnough.htm#_ftnref17



[Edited on 10-15-2005 by poimen]
 
Originally posted by poimen
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by poimen
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Gabe,
Our children are indeed Christians. They are part of the visible church and are disciples of Christ. The term Christian denotes disciple, not a validation of regeneration or conversion.

How or would you distinguish your articulation here to that of Douglas Wilson's explanation of a Christian "'Reformed Is Not Enough'"?

Daniel,
Given my age, would you quote Wilson for me please? :bigsmile:

"A Christian, in one sense, is anyone who is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by an authorized representative of the Christian church... according to the Bible, a Christian is one who would be identified as such by a Muslim. Membership in the Christian faith is objective- it can be photographed and fingerprinted."

(Pages 19 & 21)

He does not deny that, in another sense, one is must be or is a Christian in an inward sense, regenerated, converted etc.

So I am asking if you hold to a two-fold sense of being a Christian, or only one sense of being a Christian?

To be open and honest, this is my position: I would want to raise my children as Christians, believing that they are Christians, even though this may not turn out to be the case. But I would not hold to a two-fold sense of being a 'Christian.' In regards to the covenant/church yes (administration/essence; visible/invisible) but not the word Christian.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/WilsonDouglasReformedNotEnough.htm#_ftnref17



[Edited on 10-15-2005 by poimen]

My Children will be considered Christian until the day they apostasize from the church. Being a Christian does not validate one's position in the invisible church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top