God's faithfulness...to me and my children?

Status
Not open for further replies.
blhowes

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
Lately, as I read the OT, I've been having reoccurring thoughts about God's faithfulness with regard to his covenants with his people and, more specifically, how God's faithfulness to the OT covenants relates to me and my family (or if it does).

Judges 2:10 And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.

In the book of Judges you have an entire generation who had been unfaithful to tell the next generation who God is and what he had done for His people. Nevertheless, God was angry with the second generation who forsook Him, even though they hadn't been taught these things. Inspite of man's unfaithfulness, God was faithful, considered them to be His people, punished them, and then raised up judges for their deliverance.

When you read through Kings and Chronicles, you see king after king who are characterized as being evil or being more evil than previous kings. I'm sure (?) there was always a faithful remnant, but I would think that in general the people wouldn't be too different from their kings. I may be wrong, but I get the impression that when God sent the prophets to confront the people about their sins and to call them to repentance, it wasn't just one generation who had done evil who needed to be spoken to. I get the impression that there had been several generations that had forsaken God.

What strikes me is that it seems like you have generation after generation in the OT who have forsaken God, yet God still holds each generation accountable for forsaking God, even if there are several generations in a row that had forsaken God.

I started wondering what it is that God would have me to learn from this truth of His faithfulness. Dispensationalists seem to look at this faithfulness as God being faithful to the nation of Israel, and therefore expect Him to be faithful to the nation of Israel in the future just as He was in the past. That's one way of looking at it.

Another way to look at it is at the family level instead of the national level. You start with a faithful man/family, followed by one or more evil generations. The man/family at the 'end of the line' was still considered God's people, chastised for their apostasy, and expected to repent - even though there may have been several generations in a row who didn't walk with God.

I'm wondering if this has any application to me and my family? If not, what am I to learn from God's faithfulness to successive apostate generations in the OT?
 
Continuing to think, but the wheels aren't turning as fast as I'd like :banghead:

I can't put my finger on it yet, but it seems there's a connection between how God dealt in families in the OT and the way he deals in families today. Maybe the CTers are right...:think:

Mulling it over,
Bob
 
[quote:f7865a28c2="Bladestunner316"]didnt God punish Davids offspring due to his disobedience?

blade[/quote:f7865a28c2]

How far down the line do you mean? God set aside the tribe of Judah and would not let them be taken down on behalf of his relationship with David.
 
You can look at it conversely: we often speak of the promises of God with respect to multi-generational Covenantal Fidelity, as we should. But how often do we speak of the curses of God with respect to multi-generational covenant-breaking?
 
[quote:7d760f73c4="Finn McCool"]You can look at it conversely: we often speak of the promises of God with respect to multi-generational Covenantal Fidelity, as we should. But how often do we speak of the curses of God with respect to multi-generational covenant-breaking?[/quote:7d760f73c4]
I agree. In the OT, God was faithful to his covenant promises of blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience, through all the generations of those who were in the covenant.

God was faithful to his covenant promises and every successive generation, regardless of how many previous generations had forsaken God, were considered to be His people and were expected to obey. There was a strong bond between God and his people, a people who often were disobedient (and perhaps unsaved). I'm wondering how (if) this bond between God and His OT people throughout their generations relates to those who are part of the new covenant today?
 
If we take from the Ten Commandments as an example:[quote:a116e9ece3]for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
[/quote:a116e9ece3]
If you figure that we are somewhere between the eigtieth and hundredth generation from Christ, and around the three hundredth from Noah (just a rough estimate),

and then:
[quote:a116e9ece3]but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. [/quote:a116e9ece3]
noting that it does not stop at a thousand generations, but goes on an indeterminate "thousands" of generations, ...

well, let's just say that there is more to Covenant Theology than meets the eye.
 
[quote:edfeabe3f5="blhowes"]God was faithful to his covenant promises and every successive generation, regardless of how many previous generations had forsaken God, were considered to be His people and were expected to obey. There was a strong bond between God and his people, a people who often were disobedient (and perhaps unsaved). I'm wondering how (if) this bond between God and His OT people throughout their generations relates to those who are part of the new covenant today?[/quote:edfeabe3f5]

For me, it's largely a simple matter of the fact that God nowhere gave us any indication that He was ever going to change that pattern. Furthermore, that is confirmed by the continuity between the Old and New Testaments on the matter (all Scriptures ESV):

-Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and you [Abraham] and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you."
-Deuteronomy 30:6 (emphasis mine) "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart [i:edfeabe3f5]and the heart of your offspring[/i:edfeabe3f5], so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."
-Psalm 22:9-10 "Yet you [God] are he who took me [David] from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God."
-Psalm 103:17-18 (emphasis mine) "But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and [i:edfeabe3f5]his righteousness to children's children[/i:edfeabe3f5], to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments."
-Proverbs 3:33 (emphasis mine) "The LORD's curse is on the house of the wicked, but [i:edfeabe3f5]he blesses the dwelling of the righteous[/i:edfeabe3f5]."
-Proverbs 11:21 (emphasis mine) "Be assured, an evil person will not go unpunished, but [i:edfeabe3f5]the offspring of the righteous will be delivered[/i:edfeabe3f5]."
-Isaiah 54:13 "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children."
-Isaiah 59:21 (emphasis mine) "'And as for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the LORD: 'My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, [i:edfeabe3f5]or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring[/i:edfeabe3f5],' says the LORD, '[i:edfeabe3f5]from this time forth and forevermore[/i:edfeabe3f5].'"
-Isaiah 65:23 "They [God's people] shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them."
-Jeremiah 32:39 (emphasis mine) "I will give them [the elect] one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good [i:edfeabe3f5]and the good of their children after them[/i:edfeabe3f5]."
-Luke 1:14-15 (emphasis mine) "And you [Zechariah] will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his [John the Baptist's] birth, for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and [i:edfeabe3f5]he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb[/i:edfeabe3f5]."
-Acts 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."
-1 Corinthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."

I think these passages clearly confirm the continuity between the times of Abraham and our own families today regarding God's spiritual promises and favor to covenant children, and the inclusion of believers' children in that covenant.
 
In Scripture we have explicit statements telling us that the "to you and your children" principle still applies today. Ezekiel 37, Isaiah 59, Jeremiah 32, and Zechariah 10 are a few examples where our children are included in the promise of the New Covenant. Only if the New Testament explicitly changed this principle could we deny it today, but in fact, we find nothing of the sort. So we must of necessity assume continuity on this point rather than discontinuity.

So now, in light of this, what do you think Peter meant in Acts 2:39?
 
John and Chris,
Thanks for your responses and the scriptures you shared. Your posts have been very helpful to me as I think through these things. Its funny how I've 'heard' these things many times before on the forum...only now I'm ready to hear them.

[quote:3c14749a1d="Craig"]
In Scripture we have explicit statements telling us that the "to you and your children" principle still applies today. Ezekiel 37, Isaiah 59, Jeremiah 32, and Zechariah 10 are a few examples where our children are included in the promise of the New Covenant. Only if the New Testament explicitly changed this principle could we deny it today, but in fact, we find nothing of the sort. So we must of necessity assume continuity on this point rather than discontinuity.

So now, in light of this, what do you think Peter meant in Acts 2:39?[/quote:3c14749a1d]
First, thanks for 'backing me into the corner' (in a nice way) with your post. It put pressure on me, forcing me to think, and I appeciate it.

I think I've been wrong about this verse all along. I've been taking it out of context and only looking at it as if it were a new revelation totally divorced from the OT.

What did Peter mean? He meant the same thing that it meant in the OT. I'm still thinking through what it all means, but at least now I see the connection. The only thing that could have cemented it more for me would have been if Peter would have added the phrase 'as it is written' to the verse. After reading through Acts 2 this morning, I'm thinking that it may be there, not in so many words in this verse, but in the context of the whole sermon where he ties what's going on to prophecies in Joel and Psalms.

I'm looking forward to spending time studying Acts 2. I don't want to get ahead of myself, but I found Joel's prophecy interesting where he mentions sons, daughters, young men, old men, servants, and handmaids being used of God. When I read the verse in the past, I always looked at what they did (prophesy, see visions, dream dreams, etc) rather than who they are (family members).

[b:3c14749a1d]Prayer Request:[/b:3c14749a1d]
I'd like to ask for prayer from my brothers and sisters. Its exciting to learn new things, but I'm finding that its more than just a battle for the mind. I was thinking about the verses shared this morning as I waited for a bus, and the thought came to me "If I ever changed to CT, what would I tell my baptist brothers...or my family?" Then, I thought "Do you want to please others, or do you want to know and yield to revealed truth". And finally, I thought "Which concerns me more, what others will think if I change what I believe... or what God will think if I don't yield myself to what he teaches in favor of pleasing others."

I've been a baptist for 28 years now, so its not easy to change overnight. I don't know that it (ie. being a baptist) will change, but I'd like prayer that I will just be able to focus on the scriptures, focus out what others may think, swallow my pride if necessary, and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Bob,
Praise God for that which He is doing, as well as that which He will accomplish in your witness to those close to you. We will assuredly keep you in prayer.
 
Bob,

While you are at it, could you do me a favor and do some thinking about how a covenantal view of children necessitates baptizing at birth rather than at profession, and then would you share with me your personal reflections on that if you come to anything you feel worth sharing?

Cordially,

Radar
 
[quote:26a433976b="Glenn"]Bob,
While you are at it, could you do me a favor and do some thinking about how a covenantal view of children necessitates baptizing at birth rather than at profession, and then would you share with me your personal reflections on that if you come to anything you feel worth sharing?[/quote:26a433976b]
Glenn,
Thanks for your suggestion and I will definitely think about it.
BTW, just curious if you, as a Baptist, hold to a covenantal view of children?
Bob
 
Bob,

Remember Proverbs 18:17- [i:dd6c904ca6]The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.[/i:dd6c904ca6]

Craig said:
[quote:dd6c904ca6="luvroftheWord"]In Scripture we have explicit statements telling us that the "to you and your children" principle still applies today. Ezekiel 37, Isaiah 59, Jeremiah 32, and Zechariah 10 are a few examples where our children are included in the promise of the New Covenant. Only if the New Testament explicitly changed this principle could we deny it today, but in fact, we find nothing of the sort. So we must of necessity assume continuity on this point rather than discontinuity.[/quote:dd6c904ca6]
Actually, the New Testament does change the principle. I'm sure you are very familiar with the principles of typology, wherein spiritual truths are communicated by means of physical representations (levitical sacrifices as types of Christ's sacrifice, Aaronic priesthood as a type of Christ's priesthood, etc.) Covenant children are also typological. Note also that the promise given to Abraham regarding children is closely tied to the land. Both Reformed Baptists and Reformed Paedobaptists recognize the typology of the land (even though it is not explicitly stated as having been changed); only the Reformed Baptists recognize the typology of covenant children.

Here's a short, simplified catechism that I wrote on the subject, I hope it may be of some use to you.

[quote:dd6c904ca6]Q: Who is the Covenant Head of the Abrahamic Covenant?

A: Abraham.


Q: Who is the Covenant Head of the New Covenant?

A: Christ.


Q: Who is included in the Abrahamic Covenant along with their Head?

A: Abraham's Children.
Gen 17:7 [i:dd6c904ca6]And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.[/i:dd6c904ca6]


Q: Who is included in the New Covenant along with their Head?

A: Christ's Children.
Isaiah 53:10 [i:dd6c904ca6]Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.[/i:dd6c904ca6]
Heb 2:11-13 [i:dd6c904ca6]For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, "œI will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise." And again, "œI will put my trust in him." And again, "œBehold, I and the children God has given me."[/i:dd6c904ca6]


Q: How did one enter the Abrahamic Covenant?

A: By physical birth, or by purchase.
Genesis 17:13 [i:dd6c904ca6]both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.[/i:dd6c904ca6]


Q: How does one enter the New Covenant?

A1: Not by physical birth,
John 1:12-13 [i:dd6c904ca6]But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.[/i:dd6c904ca6]

A2: but by spiritual birth, and being bought by Christ.
John 3:5-8 [i:dd6c904ca6]answered, "œTruly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, "˜You must be born again."(tm) The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."[/i:dd6c904ca6]
1 Peter 1:3 [i:dd6c904ca6]Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead[/i:dd6c904ca6]
1 Cor 6:19-20 [i:dd6c904ca6]Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.[/i:dd6c904ca6]
Revelation 5:9 [i:dd6c904ca6]And they sang a new song, saying, "œWorthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation[/i:dd6c904ca6]


Q: When did one receive the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant?

A: After one entered it by physical birth.
Gen 17:12 [i:dd6c904ca6]He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,[/i:dd6c904ca6]


Q: When does one receive the sign of the New Covenant?

A: After one enters it by spiritual birth.
Acts 2:41 [i:dd6c904ca6]So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.[/i:dd6c904ca6]


Q: Spiritually, who then was in view when God gave the promise "to thee and thy seed" to Abraham?

A1: Not his physical children,
Luke 3:8 [i:dd6c904ca6]Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, "˜We have Abraham as our father."(tm) For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.[/i:dd6c904ca6]
John 8:39-40 [i:dd6c904ca6]They answered him, "œAbraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "œIf you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.[/i:dd6c904ca6]

A2: But his spiritual children.
Gal 3:7-9 [i:dd6c904ca6]Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "œIn you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.[/i:dd6c904ca6]
Gal 3:29 [i:dd6c904ca6]And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.[/i:dd6c904ca6][/quote:dd6c904ca6]
 
Bob,

I have not reconciled/accepted some arguments on both sides of the fence. I can accept Apostolic admonition to children (eph 6:1), raising up a godly seed, promises to you and your children, etc., but hard pressed to pull the trigger on baptizing infants based on conceptual rather than didactic argument. I have withheld the water until the Spirit ceases to withhold the opening of the heart. Baptism based on "presumption and profession" versus based on "presumption without profession." Maybe I'm as much a dry Presbyterian as I am a baptist...rejected by all sides!! :lol:

The last thing I want is to succomb to any measure of peer-pressure.

Just curious about your thoughts; am not disapproving your final decision.

Peace...
 
[quote:5cbf85d036="Radar"]I have withheld the water until the Spirit ceases to withhold the opening of the heart.[/quote:5cbf85d036]

And how do you honestly know that the latter has not yet occurred? What about John the Baptist?

[quote:5cbf85d036="Radar"]Baptism based on "presumption and profession" versus based on "presumption without profession."[/quote:5cbf85d036]

"Presumption and profession" is simply a synonymous way of saying, "presumption and more presumption."

[quote:5cbf85d036="Radar"]The last thing I want is to succomb to any measure of peer-pressure.[/quote:5cbf85d036]

Amen.
 
God testified about John the Baptist's condition. I haven't had that luxury with my kids. I don't think they are a new prophet of a newer testament. :D

John was exceptional. The exceptional shouldn't become the rule. It highlights the rule. In general, most aren't like John.

As far as "presuming and more presuming," that is not a clear reiteration of "presuming and profession." Profession is all I have about you, but I would not be in fellowship with you without it. To define profession as useless presumption belittles profession. Profession is evidence, presumption is not. That is part of my hesitancy with typical paedo, not that I am without problems with typical credo too! :candle:
 
Radar,
I think Chris' example in John the Baptist was to substantiate that God does in fact regenerate in the womb; he (John) was not the only example. Do you believe God does not work along these lines?

I don't know that I would define profession as 'useless'. It certainlyt has it's value; We measure eachother along these lines. It does not validate however.
 
In general, most aren't like John.

So, some are. :bs2:

"Useless" may not have been a good adjective. But the heart behind it was that it isn't completely proper to equate profession with presumption, as was suggested with "presumption and more presumption." Thus I don't think that viewing children covenantally is antagonizing to a credo position by default.

I don't oppose paedos. Many baptists seemingly would ask paedo-baptized people to be rebaptized as part of joining their baptist church. I wouldn't consider such a thing. I think I recall a recent thread where Piper's church is addressing that very thing.

Gotta go!

Peace
 
[quote:a12d4fc460="Radar"]As far as "presuming and more presuming," that is not a clear reiteration of "presuming and profession." Profession is all I have about you, but I would not be in fellowship with you without it. To define profession as useless presumption belittles profession. Profession is evidence, presumption is not.[/quote:a12d4fc460]

I definitely do not classify profession as anything even close to useless by any means - [i:a12d4fc460]quite the contrary.[/i:a12d4fc460] It is useful in that profession is one biblical ground on which to presume one's regeneration - but it is not a [i:a12d4fc460]certain[/i:a12d4fc460] ground for such, any more than is infant presumptive regeneration. This is why your statement that "profession is evidence, presumption is not" has no grounds. Both of them are ultimately no more than imperfect though educated presumptions made on certain biblical grounds - the former on the biblical ground of external evidence of repentance, the latter on the biblical ground of God's covenantal promises. Each one is a biblically valid and unique ground on which to presume regeneration - I say [i:a12d4fc460]unique[/i:a12d4fc460] because each ground has an advantage that the other does not. Adult profession has the external evidence of repentance, which infant presumption does not. Likewise, infant presumption has God's covenantal promises and blessings, which adult profession does not.
 
[quote:272a263e4e]"It is useful in that profession is one biblical ground on which to presume one's regeneration - but it is not a certain ground for such, any more than is infant presumptive regeneration."[/quote:272a263e4e]

I will know them by their fruit. I've seen this merry-go-round discussion on the forum before, so perhaps we're rehashing better threads. But paedos have argued that regeneration usually occurs down the line. Someone always suggests John the Baptist, a true example of regeneration in utero. But paedos normally refer to baptism as a sign of what is to come, namely, regeneration and profession of faith (not walking an aisle, but fruit). I really would like for the discussions to stop careening into the John example, as it stands as exceptional (not singularly unique, Scott, but an exception and not the rule). I'm only talking the usual/ordinary.

I can either baptize my children and bring them up in the nurture of the Lord until, and of course continuing after, faith comes. Fine and dandy, I respect your concept though I don't hold it. I suppose what I do argue about is the insistence that paedo baptism is necessarily precipitated from the covenantal viewpoint concerning children. Thus, I raise my children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and they are baptized upon demonstrated faith. I still trust God's promise, not crossing my fingers but rather expecting that day to come. I still perform my parental duty. I don't act according to my presumption alone, but I do act when at least two are gathered together in equal presumption about the young tree, based on its fruit-bearing.

So, I suppose what would be more useful for your attempts to persuade me would be to focus on sacraments. Stop telling me [i:272a263e4e]that[/i:272a263e4e] paedo baptism is necessary, and start telling me [i:272a263e4e]why[/i:272a263e4e] it is necessary. That is what I would sincerely like to know. I think Bob would appreciate this as well.

Gentlemen, commence to convince! :think:

If ya can! :lol:


Thanks,

Radar
 
Philip A,

Perhaps you didn't go back and read those passages I referenced, but those are prophecies about the coming of the New Covenant, and they all explicitly include our children. If the NT tells us something different than what the OT said about the New Covenant, then we have a contradictory Bible.

All your catechism does is lay out Baptist theology. About 3 years ago I would have agreed with it. But now I wear glasses that are a different shade of red.
 
[quote:de0f7d52f9="Me Died Blue"]I'll be praying for you, Bob.[/quote:de0f7d52f9]
Thanks, Chris. I appreciate your prayers.

[quote:de0f7d52f9="Philip"]Here's a short, simplified catechism that I wrote on the subject, I hope it may be of some use to you.[/quote:de0f7d52f9]
Thanks for posting the catechism. Interesting.

I'm sure I'll have more questions after I've thought more about what you've written, but I was curious about a couple things. (...and, BTW, since I'm not sure what you believe about some of the things I mention, I run the danger putting words into your mouth, which I don't intend to do. Please feel free to spit out whatever words don't belong)

[quote:de0f7d52f9="Philip"]Covenant children are also typological. Note also that the promise given to Abraham regarding children is closely tied to the land. Both Reformed Baptists and Reformed Paedobaptists recognize the typology of the land (even though it is not explicitly stated as having been changed); only the Reformed Baptists recognize the typology of covenant children.[/quote:de0f7d52f9]

Does that mean that the OT references to covenant children have dual meanings (physical and spiritual) and that the NT references have only a spiritual meaning? With the OT sacrifices, Hebrews clearly helps us understand how the types are to be understood, what they represent, and how they are fulfilled. Are there other passages that help us in this regard regarding covenant children?

It seems to me that when it says in Acts 2:39, 'to you and to your children...', that it would have been understood by those who heard it to be a reference to other OT promises. I don't know if you agree to this but, if you do, how then should the phrase be understood? If I take at face value what I read in your post, when Peter said the promise is to 'you and your children', that would mean to those who got saved and to their spiritual children. Since physical age may or may not correspond to spiritual age, a child who gets saved could witness to an adult who gets saved. Spiritually, the adult is the child and the child is the adult. Is this how Acts 2:39 should be understood?
 
[quote:9f1eafc3e7]Q: Who is the Covenant Head of the Abrahamic Covenant?

A: Abraham. [/quote:9f1eafc3e7]

This is not only in error from a Covenant Theology perspective, but even from a basic biblical perspective. The ONLY covenant Head between God and man in the CoG is NOT Abraham, but Christ. Representatives total TWO: Adam, under the CoW, and Christ, under the CoG. Christ is the mediator of the CoG, not Abraham, not Moses, not Joshua, not Noah, not anyone. Abraham saved no one, and was not the mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant. Luke 1 demonstrates that BOTH Mary and Zechariah place mediation and fulfillment of promise on Christ of the ABRAHAMIC Covenant continuing.

Even your Confession teaches this:

7:2
Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a [b:9f1eafc3e7]covenant of grace[/b:9f1eafc3e7],[2] wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation [b:9f1eafc3e7]by Jesus Christ[/b:9f1eafc3e7], requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved;[3] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.[4]

8:2
...yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man. (Rom. 9:5; I Tim. 2:5)

As the Scriptures teach:
Genesis 17:9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.

NOT: And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, [b:9f1eafc3e7]FOR[/b:9f1eafc3e7] you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.

Rather:

Exodus 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered [b:9f1eafc3e7]his [/b:9f1eafc3e7]covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

Leviticus 26:42 then I will remember [b:9f1eafc3e7]my [/b:9f1eafc3e7]covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

1 Chronicles 16:16 the covenant that [b:9f1eafc3e7]he [/b:9f1eafc3e7]made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Isaac,

Acts 3:25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that [b:9f1eafc3e7]God [/b:9f1eafc3e7]made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'

Acts 7:8 And [b:9f1eafc3e7]he [/b:9f1eafc3e7]gave him the covenant of circumcision.

Abraham offered a big ZERO in terms of mediation.
Isaiah 51:2 Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for he was but one when [b:9f1eafc3e7]I called him[/b:9f1eafc3e7], that [b:9f1eafc3e7]I might bless [/b:9f1eafc3e7]him [b:9f1eafc3e7]and [/b:9f1eafc3e7]multiply him.

That was God's doing!

To begin on a faulty premise is to make the rest of the syllogism go "kaploowey." (Which it does with a nuclear explosion).

Phillip A., I really don't understand why you would say that. Do you have ANY other Baptistic quotes who say the same thing? I would like to see those if you do. (Or references to works - Gill, Bunyan, Howell, Shirreff, Tomes, etc - that would be helpful).

[quote:9f1eafc3e7]Covenant children are also typological. [/quote:9f1eafc3e7]

They never were or have been. Otherwise, every reference int he NT by both Christ and the apostles about children included int he covenant is in error. Christ said the kingdom of heaven "belongs" to children (i.e. they own it as covenant children). Mothers brought their covenant children to be blessed by the Messiah. If Christ thought them to be "pagan children" now in contrast to "spiritual children" then he would have rejected them. Instead, he confirms it by saying they own the Kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:13-14 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14 but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, [color=blue:9f1eafc3e7][b:9f1eafc3e7]for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." [/b:9f1eafc3e7][/color:9f1eafc3e7]


James instructs Paul in Acts 21 to PROVE to the brethren that HE NEVER SAID that children are out of the covenant because they MISTAKINGLY thought he had said this. Paul demonstrates through upholding the law that that they misunderstood him - both by Apostolic sanction AND by physical illustration of keeping the law. The very question in that passage concerns the BRETHREN who thought Paul has said they shoudl STOP circumcising and including children in the covenant. some thought he had become "baptist." He demonstrated to them, both by the words of James, and by his actions that this was in ERROR. Otherwsie, children woudl not be regarded as holy. Otherwise they woudl not own the kingdom and have it belong TO THEM. Otherwise, Christ and the apsotles would be wrong if Baptists are right.
 
Philip A -
I certainly think that both sides occasionally exhibit some dubious exegesis... but I must confess that I think your understanding of covenant children being "typological" for those people whom we lead to Christ is certainly fueled by an agenda that goes beyond normal grammatical exegesis.
God plainly worked through families in the OT... and he appears to continue that pattern in the NT as so many family units are dealt with AS A UNIT. (Even if you want to say that they all believed, it is still interesting that God effected belief in the entire unit at the exact same time, which still maintains the normative principle that God works through families.)

A friend who used to post on this board recently asked me what the difference is between my child and some kid who just hitches a ride with me to church. My answer is that the difference is that with my child I have both God's declaration of general intent as well as biblical precedent to have a CONFIDENCE concerning my child's status before God. With the other child I don't have any basis for confidence, though I have a basis for hope since this kid is hearing the Gospel preached.
This is, in part, what it means for your children to be "covenant children."
But it certainly isn't "typological."

Ciau for now!
Ben
 
[quote:50f84916e5="SolaScriptura"]Philip A -
I certainly think that both sides occasionally exhibit some dubious exegesis... but I must confess that I think your understanding of covenant children being "typological" for those people whom we lead to Christ is certainly fueled by an agenda that goes beyond normal grammatical exegesis.[/quote:50f84916e5]

Ben,

Thanks for pointing that out, that was sloppy writing on my part. I didn't mean to suggest that the spiritual children that we find in the NT references were the fulfilment of the type, but I can see how including it with the other points made it look that way. It was more of an appendix, so I corrected it. I appreicate the help.

I'll get back to your question and the others when I have more time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Solparvus
  • Locked
Christ’s mediation to covenant children
Replies
18
Views
2K
brendanchatt
brendanchatt
3
  • Locked
Covenant Children - children of wrath and children of God in tension
Replies
10
Views
3K
chuckd
chuckd
jenney
  • Locked
Blessings to Covenant Children
Replies
20
Views
6K
5solasmom
5solasmom
athanatos
  • Locked
Covenant Children and adoption
Replies
12
Views
5K
kvanlaan
kvanlaan
ChristopherPaul
  • Locked
Elders and their Children
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Semper Fidelis
Semper Fidelis
Back
Top