If children of believers are part of God's covenant, why do some come to reject Christianity?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This will be useful as to "means of grace":
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-ordinary-means-of-grace.19104/

 

[earl40]

It is, of course, true that proper parental instruction is no guarantee of children's following in the faith, nor is spiritual parental neglect a guarantee that children will fall away. However, parental spiritual neglect is happening on a massive scale today and is a factor in children falling away in many, many cases. Parents give the training of their children over to the church, thinking that therefore (since the church is doing it), therefore they don't need to do much of anything by way of family worship. This winds up being one hour (or maybe two) on a Sunday morning of good stuff (if the family is fortunate) versus hours upon hours upon hours of indoctrination by the schools and by television in secular humanism, evolution, and other faith-destroying lies. Parents are naive if they think that they don't need to instruct, catechize, and counteract the secular humanism that their children are getting in the schools and other places.

I think you are placing the emphasis on the wrong syllable on the proper view on how people believe....not to say parents are not important cogs in that wheel.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

One, is this a common/standard reformed, Presbyterian position?

"Ordinary means" is an expression from WCF 18.3, "the right use of ordinary means."

In ch.14, Of Saving Faith, we read the following,

I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,1 is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,2 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,3 by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.4​

Here, the word "ordinarily" is used as a synonym for "typically." But the sense is two-fold, inasmuch as "ordinary" also means "pedestrian" or "mundane;" that is to say, the Word (as such), and water, bread, wine (again, as such) are nothing extraordinary; but being used of God they do extraordinary things.

So whether they are creating or strengthening saving faith, these are absolutely extraordinary effects. Yet, the means of so producing them are completely run-of-the-mill, everyday standard. And this is offensive to the natural man, who like Naaman wishes the things he would have to do would more befit the outstanding abilities and gifts of a man, who by them thinks he'll show himself "worthy" of the blessing.

So, yes, the doctrine of "the ordinary means of grace" is eminently Presbyterian (and Reformed, see 3FU), as may be seen directly in the ch.27, Of the Sacraments,

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it:7 but upon the work of the Spirit,8 and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.9​

On the other hand, since the 19th century, there has been quite a bit of allergy to understanding the Standards (WCF or 3FU) in a most originalist sense, when it comes to the sacraments in particular. Rationalism made significant inroads. We aim to cut evenly between the rationalism/ritualism declines.

In addition, the P&R move toward the Zwinglian/memorialist interpretation of the sacraments accelerated in the 20th century, as the believing church shrank and allies were looked for in common-cause. The Baptist interpretation of the sacraments has ever been more in line with the memorialist view; and frankly many P&R watered down our views somewhat in the past two centuries from the distinctive Reformed position. But that position is still codified in our Confessional documents. It sits (if I may call it) equidistant between the Lutheran and the Zwinglian positions.

Two, in what exact way is baptism a "means of grace?"

Please read my article (I think AskMr.Religion linked it above). In short, it is specific (and unremarkable) activity that the church is assigned to perform, unto which God has been pleased to add his word of promise, which is then effectual unto faith. It is what the Heidelberg Cat. means by its use of terms "as really as" or "as surely as" when speaking of those things we see being united to the things we cannot see (H.C. 73 & 79).

Please don't read-into this statement, but read the article so as to have as complete an apprehension of my meaning as you may.

Three, deriving "some" spiritual benefit from baptism at "some" moment sounds vague to me; could you clarify?

God may, if he so desires, communicate something of his love and mercy in Christ to any elect person, right at his baptism, including to an infant. It will mark the "beginning" of his saving work for such an elect one. For an adult convert, it is a little past (most likely) his inflection point; for a small child, a little early. But Presbyterians aren't worried about "timing."

Four, how is baptism used by God as a means, "as much as" the word?

If a mother is capable of real communication to her infant, in spite of its cognitive limits, surely God is even more capable of "non-verbal" communication. And his willingness to use baptism for divine communication is on the record. Plus, the nature of the instrument (sensible sign) is to communicate.

Sacraments do not create or initiate faith. They do strengthen faith. Anyone who has been regenerated is spiritually alive, and can use some strengthening. Infants may be regenerated (however many may be is not important); ergo, God will use such means to strengthen any regenerated infant; or if that regeneration moment comes later (age 5, age 10, etc.) he will give him that grace that belongs to him by baptism at that time. WCF28.6

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;16 yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.17​

Finally, if the use is "mysterious" and not entirely "obvious" then is it mystical in some sense? Again, sounds very vague.

I am not a "mystic." I don't promote "mysticism."

That said, there is room with us for mystery. And (if I may reference W.R. Godfrey), Calvin might surprise some modern ostensibly Reformed types with his (so-called) "mystical" bent, particularly on the sacraments.

I am quite sure Reformed-rationalists have needlessly and sadly driven some away from the riches and depth of real Reformed theology by a sterile and shallow sacramentology--one so concerned to reduce every aspect to rational subjugation--and these poor souls have wandered off to Rome, EO, and even the cults in search of "experience."

What they are looking for is present in the sacraments, rightly administered. But when they don't find that in a Reformed church, but only a cracker and grape juice, and the limits of their imaginative internal dialog; then they go off unsatisfied, and are dazzled by the false-glitz and glamour of the sacerdotalists.

We don't need mysticism. We need the touch of the mystical, to let us know: while we are expected to use our intellect to the full; yet we realize that at our fullest we are actually up against a boundary, a veil, beyond which there remains a summons to the knowledge of intimacy. This world cannot satisfy that pang, but the means of grace in this world can take us to that boundary again and again, to press against the veil; until it is time for us to pass that bound, and depart to be with the Lord.

 

[brendanchatt]

I found out I have some great so many times great grandmother who was born into the Free Church of Scotland. I was not raised Christian, but due to my paternal grandparent's nominal Presbyterianism for some time, my aunt recommended going to a Presbyterian church. That was a PCA church, and now I'm saved.
I like to think maybe that ancestor prayed for such as me, and a few generations down, the means of grace worked on some of the descendants of the godly.

 

[JTB.SDG]

There is a lot that could be said here. Others have spoken of the distinction between the visible and invisible church, which is an important point. Along those lines, you could say there is a difference between being IN the covenant and being OF the covenant. But I believe your question is an incredibly important one, which, in and of itself, this distinction does not resolve. In Genesis 17:7, God PROMISES to be the God of Abraham's seed after him. So, NOTE: 1) God is NOT promising to merely include Abraham's seed in the visible church--He's promising to actually be their God. And 2) God is NOT merely offering to be their God, if they in faith respond to His proposed offer; rather, He's actually promising to make the covenant effectual in the hearts and lives of Abraham's seed after them. He's not just offering salvation, He's actually promising it.

The historic, Reformed understanding of these things (and Vos especially draws this out in his Systematics, Volumes 2 and 5) is this: Every single one of Abraham's physical seed was to be marked with the Covenant sign; all of them without exception were to receive circumcision. But God was not, it seems, actually promising to extend the REALITY of the covenant to every single one of them without exception. There were Ishmael's and Esau's in the covenant line. When God made the promise--and it was a promise--to extend the reality of the Covenant (IE, salvation in the fullest sense) to him and TO HIS SEED; what we don't know in that verse is the exact extent of the definition of "seed." What Scripture goes on to clarify (later in Genesis and Paul's explanation of things in Romans 9) is that the definition here of "seed" is actually limited. It doesn't mean each and every physical descendant--it means that God is promising to raise up an elect seed among Abraham's physical descendants. After all, in Genesis 17:7-8 God is promising to extend his covenant to Abraham's seed and give them the land; but later in the same chapter we're told that this covenant won't actually extend to Ishmael. And later in Genesis (I think chapter 34) we come to find that Esau gets up and leaves the land of Canaan for another land; he and his descendants would not actually inherit the land (compare with Genesis 17:8). So in short: The essence of the covenant was INDEED salvation in the fullest sense; it wasn't just an offer; and it wasn't just the outward wineskin of the covenant (IE, the visible church). But God wasn't making this promise to each and every physical descendant; but to the elect physical descendants among Abraham's seed. What God was in fact promising was actually to raise up and preserve for himself an elect seed from among Abraham's line--to a thousand generations. It's the same promise for us.

Having said all that, he (and we) still apply the covenant sign to each and every child. God himself said the covenant wasn't to extend to Ishmael; nevertheless Abraham was still commanded to mark him with the covenant sign.

 

[Dachaser]

David, the term "means of grace" is not usually taken to mean "the way in which people are saved". It is used for all the things that are used of God to impart grace to His children. When I go to church and hear the Word preached, I am partaking of the means of grace: God has promised to nurture me and edify me by the preaching of His word.
Baptism is a means of grace (in Baptist thought), in that the baptism is a visible "preaching" of the Gospel, just like the Lord's Supper is. We see a sinner who, despairing of self, has fled to Christ for cleansing from sin. When we see a new believer baptized, we meditate on God's goodness in calling sinners to Himself; on the free offer of salvation in Christ; on newness of life; on endless other blessings and graces that come to us in Christ Jesus, and it is a means to grace. To the believing soul, grace is given in the reminder of all that is his; to the sinner, in that eternal life is offered if he will wash in the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness.

Do we Baptists and our Presbyterian brothers/sisters vest in that term means of Grace the same understanding? There does seem to be some differences on what exactly happens to infants being baptized.

 

[Dachaser]

There is a lot that could be said here. Others have spoken of the distinction between the visible and invisible church, which is an important point. Along those lines, you could say there is a difference between being IN the covenant and being OF the covenant. But I believe your question is an incredibly important one, which, in and of itself, this distinction does not resolve. In Genesis 17:7, God PROMISES to be the God of Abraham's seed after him. So, NOTE: 1) God is NOT promising to merely include Abraham's seed in the visible church--He's promising to actually be their God. And 2) God is NOT merely offering to be their God, if they in faith respond to His proposed offer; rather, He's actually promising to make the covenant effectual in the hearts and lives of Abraham's seed after them. He's not just offering salvation, He's actually promising it.

The historic, Reformed understanding of these things (and Vos especially draws this out in his Systematics, Volumes 2 and 5) is this: Every single one of Abraham's physical seed was to be marked with the Covenant sign; all of them without exception were to receive circumcision. But God was not, it seems, actually promising to extend the REALITY of the covenant to every single one of them without exception. There were Ishmael's and Esau's in the covenant line. When God made the promise--and it was a promise--to extend the reality of the Covenant (IE, salvation in the fullest sense) to him and TO HIS SEED; what we don't know in that verse is the exact extent of the definition of "seed." What Scripture goes on to clarify (later in Genesis and Paul's explanation of things in Romans 9) is that the definition here of "seed" is actually limited. It doesn't mean each and every physical descendant--it means that God is promising to raise up an elect seed among Abraham's physical descendants. After all, in Genesis 17:7-8 God is promising to extend his covenant to Abraham's seed and give them the land; but later in the same chapter we're told that this covenant won't actually extend to Ishmael. And later in Genesis (I think chapter 34) we come to find that Esau gets up and leaves the land of Canaan for another land; he and his descendants would not actually inherit the land (compare with Genesis 17:8). So in short: The essence of the covenant was INDEED salvation in the fullest sense; it wasn't just an offer; and it wasn't just the outward wineskin of the covenant (IE, the visible church). But God wasn't making this promise to each and every physical descendant; but to the elect physical descendants among Abraham's seed. What God was in fact promising was actually to raise up and preserve for himself an elect seed from among Abraham's line--to a thousand generations. It's the same promise for us.

Having said all that, he (and we) still apply the covenant sign to each and every child. God himself said the covenant wasn't to extend to Ishmael; nevertheless Abraham was still commanded to mark him with the covenant sign.

Since both children raised up in the Presbyterian/Baptist churches though have the same eternal influences of the Gospel being applied towards them, both must receive Jesus through faith, what is the real difference between water baptism to infants or waiting until saved believers?
The ordinance does not affect the baby internally, and since both children benefit from being under the external influence, why not wait until a believer in Christ?

 

[Dachaser]

"Ordinary means" is an expression from WCF 18.3, "the right use of ordinary means."

In ch.14, Of Saving Faith, we read the following,

I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,1 is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,2 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,3 by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.4​

Here, the word "ordinarily" is used as a synonym for "typically." But the sense is two-fold, inasmuch as "ordinary" also means "pedestrian" or "mundane;" that is to say, the Word (as such), and water, bread, wine (again, as such) are nothing extraordinary; but being used of God they do extraordinary things.

So whether they are creating or strengthening saving faith, these are absolutely extraordinary effects. Yet, the means of so producing them are completely run-of-the-mill, everyday standard. And this is offensive to the natural man, who like Naaman wishes the things he would have to do would more befit the outstanding abilities and gifts of a man, who by them thinks he'll show himself "worthy" of the blessing.

So, yes, the doctrine of "the ordinary means of grace" is eminently Presbyterian (and Reformed, see 3FU), as may be seen directly in the ch.27, Of the Sacraments,

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it:[you]7[/you] but upon the work of the Spirit,[you]8[/you] and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.[you]9[/you]​

On the other hand, since the 19th century, there has been quite a bit of allergy to understanding the Standards (WCF or 3FU) in a most originalist sense, when it comes to the sacraments in particular. Rationalism made significant inroads. We aim to cut evenly between the rationalism/ritualism declines.

In addition, the P&R move toward the Zwinglian/memorialist interpretation of the sacraments accelerated in the 20th century, as the believing church shrank and allies were looked for in common-cause. The Baptist interpretation of the sacraments has ever been more in line with the memorialist view; and frankly many P&R watered down our views somewhat in the past two centuries from the distinctive Reformed position. But that position is still codified in our Confessional documents. It sits (if I may call it) equidistant between the Lutheran and the Zwinglian positions.

Please read my article (I think AskMr.Religion linked it above). In short, it is specific (and unremarkable) activity that the church is assigned to perform, unto which God has been pleased to add his word of promise, which is then effectual unto faith. It is what the Heidelberg Cat. means by its use of terms "as really as" or "as surely as" when speaking of those things we see being united to the things we cannot see (H.C. 73 & 79).

Please don't read-into this statement, but read the article so as to have as complete an apprehension of my meaning as you may.

God may, if he so desires, communicate something of his love and mercy in Christ to any elect person, right at his baptism, including to an infant. It will mark the "beginning" of his saving work for such an elect one. For an adult convert, it is a little past (most likely) his inflection point; for a small child, a little early. But Presbyterians aren't worried about "timing."


If a mother is capable of real communication to her infant, in spite of its cognitive limits, surely God is even more capable of "non-verbal" communication. And his willingness to use baptism for divine communication is on the record. Plus, the nature of the instrument (sensible sign) is to communicate.

Sacraments do not create or initiate faith. They do strengthen faith. Anyone who has been regenerated is spiritually alive, and can use some strengthening. Infants may be regenerated (however many may be is not important); ergo, God will use such means to strengthen any regenerated infant; or if that regeneration moment comes later (age 5, age 10, etc.) he will give him that grace that belongs to him by baptism at that time. WCF28.6

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[you]16[/you] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[you]17[/you]​

I am not a "mystic." I don't promote "mysticism."

That said, there is room with us for mystery. And (if I may reference W.R. Godfrey), Calvin might surprise some modern ostensibly Reformed types with his (so-called) "mystical" bent, particularly on the sacraments.

I am quite sure Reformed-rationalists have needlessly and sadly driven some away from the riches and depth of real Reformed theology by a sterile and shallow sacramentology--one so concerned to reduce every aspect to rational subjugation--and these poor souls have wandered off to Rome, EO, and even the cults in search of "experience."

What they are looking for is present in the sacraments, rightly administered. But when they don't find that in a Reformed church, but only a cracker and grape juice, and the limits of their imaginative internal dialog; then they go off unsatisfied, and are dazzled by the false-glitz and glamour of the sacerdotalists.

We don't need mysticism. We need the touch of the mystical, to let us know: while we are expected to use our intellect to the full; yet we realize that at our fullest we are actually up against a boundary, a veil, beyond which there remains a summons to the knowledge of intimacy. This world cannot satisfy that pang, but the means of grace in this world can take us to that boundary again and again, to press against the veil; until it is time for us to pass that bound, and depart to be with the Lord.

Does the person affected by the means of Grace have to have faith in Jesus to receive any benefits though?

 

[Gforce9]

Since both children raised up in the Presbyterian/Baptist churches though have the same eternal influences of the Gospel being applied towards them, both must receive Jesus through faith, what is the real difference between water baptism to infants or waiting until saved believers?
The ordinance does not affect the baby internally, and since both children benefit from being under the external influence, why not wait until a believer in Christ?

Why disobey God in applying the sign to covenant children?

 

[Dachaser]

Why disobey God in applying the sign to covenant children?

I am not advocating for disobeying God, but would not see Covenant children as being under that unless saved/received Jesus as messiah.

 

[Gforce9]

I am not advocating for disobeying God, but would not see Covenant children as being under that unless saved/received Jesus as messiah.

You are asking Reformed folk to abandon covenantalism for dispensationalism. You need to give me a ---- good reason to withhold from children that which he told us to do. You see things dispensationally, whether you admit it or not.

 

[Dachaser]

You are asking Reformed folk to abandon covenantalism for dispensationalism. You need to give me a ---- good reason to withhold from children that which he told us to do. You see things dispensationally, whether you admit it or not.

As reformed Baptists, we would see believers baptism as the NT scripture norm for today, so that means all of us holding to that would be dispensationall I think how one views Israel and the Church. and would actually be part of the saved of the Lord would more indicate being that.

 

[Gforce9]

As reformed Baptists, we would see believers baptism as the NT scripture norm for today, so that means all of us holding to that would be dispensationall I think how one views Israel and the Church. and would actually be part of the saved of the Lord would more indicate being that.

Your hermeneutic is not covenantal

 

[Ben Zartman]

Do we Baptists and our Presbyterian brothers/sisters vest in that term means of Grace the same understanding? There does seem to be some differences on what exactly happens to infants being baptized.

The Lord's Supper is held by the Presbyterians to be a means of grace. But they do not say that one is saved by partaking of the supper. Grace is not for the act of salvation only: the Christian life is one of contiually receiving grace from our loving savior.
I don't believe that the question of whom should receive baptism is relevant to the definition of the term "means of grace."

 

[JTB.SDG]

Since both children raised up in the Presbyterian/Baptist churches though have the same eternal influences of the Gospel being applied towards them, both must receive Jesus through faith, what is the real difference between water baptism to infants or waiting until saved believers?
The ordinance does not affect the baby internally, and since both children benefit from being under the external influence, why not wait until a believer in Christ?

Good question brother. Basically, you could have asked the exact same question to Abraham about circumcision. "But Lord, what's the point then? Why not just wait till Isaac and Ishmael grow up?" God said I want them circumcised when they are infants. And actually, it was very serious (Gen. 17:14). Is Abraham in a position to argue (or even discuss)? It's the way God has set it up. Thing is, by design, God has so ordered and commanded it that there are actually not two groups of people in the world but three: unbelievers; covenant keepers, and covenant breakers.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I thought Baptists weren't supposed to answer in this sub-forum? :S

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I thought Baptists weren't supposed to answer in this sub-forum? :S

Moderator Note:

You are correct.

Dachaser: I have previously informed you of the restrictions concerning the Paedo and Credo baptist forums. Please comply with the plainly stated rules for these two forums shown in their descriptions:
https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/paedo-baptism-answers.122/
https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/credo-baptism-answers.123/

Members outside of one of the above may ask sincere questions, but answers given are only to be given by those affirming one of the positions (which is why having properly formatted signatures is helpful at our site). Moreover, rejoinders implying debate—subtle, sanguine, or explicit—is not permitted.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Moderator Note:

You are correct.

Dachaser: I have previously informed you of the restrictions concerning the Paedo and Credo baptist forums. Please comply with the plainly stated rules for these two forums shown in their descriptions:
https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/paedo-baptism-answers.122/
https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/credo-baptism-answers.123/

Members outside of one of the above may ask sincere questions, but answers given are only to be given by those affirming one of the positions (which is why having properly formatted signatures is helpful at our site). Moreover, rejoinders implying debate—subtle, sanguine, or explicit—is not permitted.

I, too, have answered, for which I apologise. In my uncontainable excitement at having something to say I forgot this was a sub-forum.
Sorry again,

 

[Gforce9]

I, too, have answered, for which I apologise. In my uncontainable excitement at having something to say I forgot this was a sub-forum.
Sorry again,

@Ben Zartman
This is a good opportunity to say something at the risk of a derailment. When you, Reagan, Bill, Bill Brown, Sean Patrick (I'm certain I'm missing others and I apologize now, this is off-the-cuff) have something to say, I listen. I know you all have put in the time and have good reason to enter debate.....and you aren't here to fight or hear yourselves talk. You guys have earned respect and you have it from me, at least. It is the German Luftwaffe slash-n-run tactic that drives me looney. When one of you guys chimes in accidentally, I understand it as such and am not offended. Carry on........

 

[De Jager]

I'm very new to the issues at stake in the Baptism debate. Theologically, I have more knowledge of issues such as soteriology. Based off of what I know about the two different positions, I definitely agree more with the confessional Presbyterian position. I myself was baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church.

I'm generally in the minority when I discuss this issue with fellow believers, and I am wondering what the best response is when they inevitably ask "well, if children of believers are automatically a part of the covenant by virtue of their parentage, then why do so many of them later leave the faith?" Though it is easy to respond by telling them that the same thing can happen to Baptists (when someone professes belief, is baptized, and later leaves the faith because they were never sincere), I am wondering what the best logical defense of the Presbyterian position is here. If the children of believers are included in the promise of God, then wouldn't this mean that they would all come to faith? Wouldn't inclusion in a promise / covenant mean that the external sign of Baptism would serve to seal the child's faith to come?

Let me preface my post by saying that I am relatively new to the 'reformed' side of this debate, so if anyone sees something objectionable in my response, please point it out. But my thoughts on this are as follows:

Sometimes reformed people refer to "the covenant", and don't really explain what that means. I think it is more helpful to use the term "the covenant community" to describe the collection of people in a church body. In the "covenant community" there are some who are truly united to Christ by faith (i.e. saved) and others who are mere professors (unsaved). As we know, Jesus spoke of wheat and tares. To human eyes, wheat and tares are very hard to distinguish. Since we are only humans and cannot discern souls with 100% accuracy, it is not our job to focus on who is truly united to Christ and who isn't, beyond what the Bible teaches about church discipline and guarding the faith, and the conclusions we draw from doing those things.

When Abraham was given the covenant of circumcision, he circumcised every male in his household including Ishmael, who by all accounts never believed. The sign of circumcision was not just a sign pointing to earthly blessings - it pointed towards Christ and what he would accomplish. In fact, very importantly Paul points out that circumcision was given before the law - to signify and seal the righteousness Abraham had by faith (Romans 4:11). This righteousness received by faith is the very essence of what it means to be 'saved' and truly part of God's covenant. Abraham received this sign after he had come to faith, however God instructed him to also give this sign to his children, which included the baby Isaac later on.

This points to the fact that the purpose and significance of the sign and seal of the 'righteousness of faith' does not depend on the person receiving it, but rather on God's promises. So "what if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being be a liar" (Romans 3:3).

So we see that circumcision - the sign of the 'righteousness of faith' was never intended to be only applied to those who demonstrated that they truly had received what the sign signified - rather, it was to be a practice done by God's people to remind themselves of the truth of his promises.

I view baptism in much the same way. We see that circumcision is clearly a sign that points forward toward Christ (Romans 4). Baptism, looks backwards to what Christ has done. Both of them point to Christ. The Biblical pattern, so it seems, is to apply the sign of this 'righteousness of faith' to the seed of believers, and so, without any clear prohibition against this by the apostles, we continue to do so. And in the same way, regardless of whether the children who receive this sign fall away or not, it does not nullify God's promises. Circumcision was never intended to be a sign that corresponded exactly with the true reality of what it signified - i.e. it was never God's intent to say by circumcision: "each and every person who receives this sign also has what is signified", and I believe that baptism is the same, because both signs point to the same thing (Christ). Even the most faithful baptist churches will admit that you can never truly be sure that the person you baptized is truly saved, because only God knows this.

I have a few more thoughts but have to go back to work now.

Does this make sense or am I way off base?

Regards,

Izaak

 

[ZackF]

Apostasy and hypocrisy don't need to be made that complicated. Child or not, when a hand picked Apostle of Our Lord's betrayed Him for a little coin, why should we ever be surprised when an external member of God's family remains only that?

 

[De Jager]

Apostasy and hypocrisy don't need to be made that complicated. Child or not, when a hand picked Apostle of Our Lord's betrayed Him for a little coin, why should we ever be surprised when an external member of God's family remains only that?

Agreed. And also consider in John 6 when after Jesus spoke, many of his disciples left him.

 

[ccravens]

I am a Baptist that asked a question here, and received some really good info. Hope that wasn't stepping out of line. BTW, I may not answer or ask more questions for a while. It will take me a bit to digest all of the info.

Seems the definitions of "means of grace" and "the covenant" need clarification, as posters have already stated (and clarified), at least for this Baptist. And recognition that they mean different things for different people.

Thanks for the good info.