Question for PE's and..........

Status
Not open for further replies.

Roldan

Puritan Board Junior
I have a question for those who hold to the Presumptive elected view and to those who take the position that our children are mere covenant members no more no less.

Does that then mean that your child is a pagan/heathen covenant memeber? Is that no better than an unbelieving spouse or a crack dealer on the corner who is marked as elect?
 
No.

My child (whether or not regenerate or elect) is in covenant with God.

The idea of a "heathen covenant member" is an oxymoron.

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Dan....]
 
I guess the question, more precisely put, is how do we treat our covenant children? No, I am not a paedocommunist. That's not what I am getting at.
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I guess the question, more precisely put, is how do we treat our covenant children? No, I am not a paedocommunist. That's not what I am getting at.

We treat our covenant children as needing the means of grace, but we have confidence because of the promise (more than the casting of the Word at large) that they will respond.

But the PE view, we still need to see fruit of salvation in our children. We do not accept "lack of obvious rebellion" as sign of salvation.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I guess the question, more precisely put, is how do we treat our covenant children? No, I am not a paedocommunist. That's not what I am getting at.

We treat our covenant children as needing the means of grace, but we have confidence because of the promise (more than the casting of the Word at large) that they will respond.

But the PE view, we still need to see fruit of salvation in our children. We do not accept "lack of obvious rebellion" as sign of salvation.

:amen:
 
Originally posted by houseparent
But there are covenant children who die in their sins, right?

Yes. The reality that there are covenant breakers is what prompts the PE advocate to see fruit in his children, and not to rest in mere absence of obvious rebellion.
 
Originally posted by houseparent
But there are covenant children who die in their sins, right?

Could you clarify who you are referring to? Do you mean, are there covenant children who go to hell when dying as infants? Then no. I would refer you to the Effectual calling chapter in the WCF. If you mean that there may be covenant children who grow up and show no fruit of faith, and then die, then yes. They may be in hell with Esau.
 
Originally posted by Dan....
No.

My child (whether or not regenerate or elect) is in covenant with God.

The idea of a "heathen covenant member" is an oxymoron.

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Dan....]

Yes it is an oxymoron and thats what I was getting at. If the child is not presumed regenerate then he must be then looked at as a child that is in the covenant but at the same time totally depraved(opposite of regenerate) and in the status of a heathen. But we paedo baptist want to look at our children as little christians and disciple them as if regenerate but on the other hand say they are just unregenerate so shouldn't we then not catechize but evangelize our children as the baptist would tell us?

Fred says:

But the PE view, we still need to see fruit of salvation in our children. We do not accept "lack of obvious rebellion" as sign of salvation.


Again why are you discipling a totally depraved child that cannot understand the things of the spirit of God?
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by houseparent
But there are covenant children who die in their sins, right?

Could you clarify who you are referring to? Do you mean, are there covenant children who go to hell when dying as infants? Then no. I would refer you to the Effectual calling chapter in the WCF.

Actually, Patrick, could you clarify what you mean by "covenant children" in this case? If you mean children in the invisible Covenant of Grace, I fully agree. If, however, you mean that all children dying in infancy as members of the visible covenant of grace go to heaven, I would have to take issue both with our biblical certainty of that as well as the Confession's support of it. The chapter on Effectual Calling states, "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases." But all visible covenant children dying in infancy are not necessarily elect, though we presume them to be as we disciple them through the means of grace.

Originally posted by Roldan
Fred says:

But the PE view, we still need to see fruit of salvation in our children. We do not accept "lack of obvious rebellion" as sign of salvation.


Again why are you discipling a totally depraved child that cannot understand the things of the spirit of God?

As Fred likewise said above, we are discipling them with the means of grace because we believe because of God's promise that they will in time respond to them - and it is specifically through the Word that the Spirit eventually regenerates people (as Fred showed nicely in pages 8 and 9 of this thread), which is why we have purpose and hope in exposing them to the Word as presumed elect persons.

Similarly, the sacraments are means of grace, the Spirit's impartation of grace through the Supper is tied to the particular time the sacrament is administered (which is why it is administered repeatedly), whereas His impartation of grace through baptism is not tied to the time of administration (which is why it is administered only once), which is why the latter is appropriate for infants presumed to be elect but not regenerate, but the former is not.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
As Fred likewise said above, we are discipling them with the means of grace because we believe because of God's promise that they will in time respond to them - and it is specifically through the Word that the Spirit eventually regenerates people (as Fred showed nicely in pages 8 and 9 of this thread), which is why we have purpose and hope in exposing them to the Word as presumed elect persons.


Ahhh, so you admit then that they are Covenant members but depraved heathens until they respond to the Covenant requirement of Faith eventually IF elect?

If so then are you not then just evangelizing them through teaching them what the Word says like the baptist?
 
The "evangel" being the gospel of Jesus Christ, yes we evangelize our children. We also give them the covenant sign when they are babies just as our forebears did.

We are adopted into Israel and carry on as part of the true vine with a better sacrifice,a new and better High Priest, and inherit the same promises that they did bearing the new covenant sign.

We are still that "holy nation." That "royal priesthood." The promises are still to us and our household.
 
Again, the difference from the Baptist is that we claim to have biblically-grounded faith that they will in time respond to the means of grace, which is also why we include baptism as one of those means alongside the Word, since, like the Word being preached, its efficacy is not specifically limited to the time at which it is administered. The Baptist does not claim to have that faith of eventual responding, which is why their discipling to their children is indeed, from their perspective, no different than discipling any heathen on the street. But the faith that our children will in time show signs of regeneration by responding to the means of grace is a major part of what gives our discipling purpose, since after all, normative regeneration is specifically wrought through the Word.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Again, the difference from the Baptist is that we claim to have biblically-grounded faith that they will in time respond to the means of grace, which is also why we include baptism as one of those means alongside the Word, since, like the Word being preached, its efficacy is not specifically limited to the time at which it is administered. The Baptist does not claim to have that faith of eventual responding, which is why their discipling to their children is indeed, from their perspective, no different than discipling any heathen on the street. But the faith that our children will in time show signs of regeneration by responding to the means of grace is a major part of what gives our discipling purpose, since after all, normative regeneration is specifically wrought through the Word.


HMMMM, Thanx for your response man. :book2:
 
For those who hold the PR position, would you mind reading "Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism" (do a Google search) and commenting on it? It has several parts to it (I think 6 or 7), but isn't that long of a read.

Please keep up the debate, I personally have been edified by this fruitful discussion, and am being sharpened.
 
One of the key verses that seems to come up in regards to any type of presumption is 1 Cor 7:14. Charles Hodge, in his commentary on 1 Cor. notes this regarding 7:14:


1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

"œThe proof that such marriages may properly be continued, is, that the unbelieving party is sanctified by the believing; and the proof that such is the fact, is, that by common consent their children are holy; which could not be, unless the marriages whence they sprang were holy; or unless the principle that intimate communion with the holy renders holy, were a correct principle.
The assertion of the apostle is, that the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified in virtue of the marriage relation with a believer. We have already seen that the word (agiazein), to sanctify, means, 1. To cleanse. 2. To render morally pure. 3. To consecrate, to regard as sacred, and hence, to reverence or to hallow. Examples of the use of the word in the third general sense just mention, are to be found in all parts of Scripture. Any person or thing consecrated to God, or employed in his service, is said to be sanctified. Thus, particular days appropriated to his service, the temple, its utensils, the sacrifices, the priest, the whole theocratical people, are called holy. Persons or things not thus consecrated are called profane, common, or unclean. To transfer any person or thing from this latter class to the former, is to sanctify him or it. What God hath cleansed (or sanctified), that call not thou common," Acts 10:15. Every creature of God is good, and is to be received with thanksgiving, "œFor it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer," 1 Tim. 4:5. This use of the word is specifically frequent in application to persons and communities. The Hebrew people were sanctified (i.e. consecrated), by being selected from other nations and devoted to the service of the true God. They were, therefore constantly called holy. All who joined them, or who were intimately connected with them, became in the same sense, holy. Their children were holy; so were their wives. "œIf the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are also the branches," Rom. 11:26. That is, if the parents be holy, so are also the children. Any child, the circumstances of whose birth secured it a place within the pale of the theocracy, or commonwealth of Israel, was according to the constant usage of Scripture, said to be holy. In none of these cases does the word express any subjective or inward change. A lamb consecrated as a sacrifice, and therefore holy, did not differ in its nature from any other lamb. The priests or people, holy in the sense of set apart to the service of god, were in their inward state the same as other men. Children born within the theocracy, and therefore holy, were nonetheless conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity. They were by nature the children of wrath, even as others, Eph. 2:3. When therefore, it is said that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, the meaning is not that they are rendered inwardly holy, nor that they are brought under a sanctifying influence, but that they were sanctified by their intimate union with a believer, just as the temple sanctified the gold connect with it; or the altar the gift laid upon it, Matt. 23:17, 19. The sacrifice in itself was merely a part of the body of a lamb, laid upon the altar, though it´s internal nature remained the same, it became something sacred. Thus the pagan husband in virtue of his union with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was sanctified; he assumed a new relation; he was set apart to the service of God, as the guardian of one of his chosen ones, and as the parent of children who, in virtue of their believing mother were children of the covenant.
That this is so, the apostle proves from the fact, that if the parents are holy, the children are holy; if the parents are unclean, the children are unclean. This is saying literally what is expressed figuratively in Rom. 11:16. "œIf the root be holy, so are the branches." It will be remembered that the words holy and unclean, do not in this connection express moral character, but are equivalent to sacred and profane. Those within the covenant are sacred, those without are profane, i.e. not consecrated to God. There are two views which may be taken of the apostle´s argument in this verse. The most natural, and hence the most generally adopted view is this: "˜The children of these mixed marriages are universally recognized as holy, that is, as belong to the church. If this be correct, which no one disputes, the marriages themselves must be consistent with the laws of God. The unbelieving must be sanctified by the believing partner. Other wise, you children would be unclean, i.e. born out of the pale of the church. To this it is indeed object by several modern commentators, that it takes for granted that the Corinthians had no scruples about the church-standing of the children of these mixed marriages. But this it is said, is very improbable so soon after the establishment of the church, when cases of the kind must have been comparatively few. The principle in question, however, was not a new one, to be then first determined by Christian usage. It was, at least, as old as the Jewish economy; and familiar wherever Jewish laws and the facts of the Jewish history, were known. Paul circumcised Timothy, whose father was a Greek while his mother was a Jewess, because he knew that his countrymen regarded circumcision in such cases as obligatory, Acts 16:1-3. The apostle constantly assumes that his readers were familiar with the principles and facts of the Old Testament economy. Comp. 10:1-13.
The other view of the argument is this: "˜If, as you admit, the children of believers be holy, why should not the husband or the wife of a believer be holy. The conjugal relation is as intimate as the parental. If the one relation secures this sacredness, so must the other. If the husband be not sanctified by his believing wife, children are not sanctified by believing parents.´ This, however, supposes a change in the persons addressed. Paul is speaking to persons involved in these mixed marriages. Your children naturally mean the children of you who have unbelieving husbands or wives. Whereas this explanation supposed your to refer to Christians generally. In either way, however, this passage recognizes as universally conceded the great scriptural principle, that the children of believers are holy. They are holy in the same sense in which the Jews were holy. They are included in the church, and have a right to be so regarded. The child of a Jewish parent had a right to circumcision, and to all the privileges of the theocracy. So the child of a Christian parent has a right to baptism and to all the privileges of the church, so long as he is represented by his parent; that is, until he arrives at the period of life when he is entitled and bound to act for himself. Then his relation to the church depends upon his own act. The church is the same in all ages. And it is most instructive to observe how the writers of the New Testament quietly take for granted that the great principles which underlie the old dispensation, are still in force, under the new. The children of Jews were treated as Jews; and the children of Christians, Paul assumes as a thing no one would dispute, are to be treated as Christians. Some modern German writers find in this passage a proof that infant baptism was unknown in the apostolic church. They say that Paul could not attribute the holiness of children to their parentage, if they were baptized "“ because their consecration would then be due to that rite, and not to their descent. This is strange reasoning. The truth is, that they were baptized not to make them holy, but because they were holy. The Jewish child was circumcised because he was a Jew, and not to make him one. The Rabbins say: Peregrina si proselyte fuerit et cum ea ejus "“ si concepta fuerit et nata in sanctitate, est ut filia Israelite per omnia. See WETSTEIN in loc. To be born in holiness (i.e. within the church) was necessary in order to the child being regarded as an Israelite. So Christian children are not made holy by baptism, but they are baptized because they are holy."

Though there are quotes that lead one to believe that Hodge was PR and some that he was PE, these coments on 7:14 do not prove either point.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Again, the difference from the Baptist is that we claim to have biblically-grounded faith that they will in time respond to the means of grace

I just caught this and wanted to comment on it again.

Does not the Reformed Baptist say the same thing in other words?

The Baptist would say that they teach and disciple their kids so that one day they will respond in faith but we both (paedo credo) agree that its up to God's Sovereign choice.

So whats the difference again?

or would you say that the baptist are incosistent and should go ahead and presume them elect and give them the sign?

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by Roldan]
 
Originally posted by Roldan
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Again, the difference from the Baptist is that we claim to have biblically-grounded faith that they will in time respond to the means of grace

I just caught this and wanted to comment on it again.

Does not the Reformed Baptist say the same thing in other words?

The Baptist would say that they teach and disciple their kids so that one day they will respond in faith but we both (paedo credo) agree that its up to God's Sovereign choice.

So whats the difference again?

or would you say that the baptist are incosistent and should go ahead and presume them elect and give them the sign?

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by Roldan]

From my experience, on this board and elsewhere, Reformed Baptists of course hope that their children will respond, just as they hope the heathen on the street will respond. But the Reformed Baptist does not believe that we have a promise and a biblical warrant to go a step further and presume that the children will respond any more than we do to presume such of the heathen on the street.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Roldan
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Again, the difference from the Baptist is that we claim to have biblically-grounded faith that they will in time respond to the means of grace

I just caught this and wanted to comment on it again.

Does not the Reformed Baptist say the same thing in other words?

The Baptist would say that they teach and disciple their kids so that one day they will respond in faith but we both (paedo credo) agree that its up to God's Sovereign choice.

So whats the difference again?

or would you say that the baptist are incosistent and should go ahead and presume them elect and give them the sign?

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by Roldan]

From my experience, on this board and elsewhere, Reformed Baptists of course hope that their children will respond, just as they hope the heathen on the street will respond. But the Reformed Baptist does not believe that we have a promise and a biblical warrant to go a step further and presume that the children will respond any more than we do to presume such of the heathen on the street.

But then if we only presume election, wouldn't we just preach the gospel until they professed? People aren't saved *usually* through devotionals etc....they are saved by the preaching of the gospel. Is that how we should raise our children? Or should we teach them the entire council of God as the leaders in the church do for the congregation? Do we treat them as if they will EVENTUALLY understand what we are telling them, or do we treat them as if they DO or ARE understanding the Word of God?

Just asking.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Roldan
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Again, the difference from the Baptist is that we claim to have biblically-grounded faith that they will in time respond to the means of grace

I just caught this and wanted to comment on it again.

Does not the Reformed Baptist say the same thing in other words?

The Baptist would say that they teach and disciple their kids so that one day they will respond in faith but we both (paedo credo) agree that its up to God's Sovereign choice.

So whats the difference again?

or would you say that the baptist are incosistent and should go ahead and presume them elect and give them the sign?

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by Roldan]

From my experience, on this board and elsewhere, Reformed Baptists of course hope that their children will respond, just as they hope the heathen on the street will respond. But the Reformed Baptist does not believe that we have a promise and a biblical warrant to go a step further and presume that the children will respond any more than we do to presume such of the heathen on the street.

But then if we only presume election, wouldn't we just preach the gospel until they professed? People aren't saved *usually* through devotionals etc....they are saved by the preaching of the gospel. Is that how we should raise our children? Or should we teach them the entire council of God as the leaders in the church do for the congregation? Do we treat them as if they will EVENTUALLY understand what we are telling them, or do we treat them as if they DO or ARE understanding the Word of God?

Just asking.


Yeah that too, what he :ditto: said


:up:
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
But then if we only presume election, wouldn't we just preach the gospel until they professed? People aren't saved *usually* through devotionals etc....they are saved by the preaching of the gospel. Is that how we should raise our children? Or should we teach them the entire council of God as the leaders in the church do for the congregation? Do we treat them as if they will EVENTUALLY understand what we are telling them, or do we treat them as if they DO or ARE understanding the Word of God?

Just asking.

The gospel is always to be preached, even if you'v ebeen a Christian for 60 years. It not only saves, but sanctifies. We are prone to forget and must be reminded over and over again what Christ has done for us. Our children must be raised to be Christians. They are disciples. This is what Thornwell called the "heir-apparent" model. They are heirs of the kingdom, and must be raised accordingly. Once they demonstrate they have embraced their inheritance (faith in Christ with a consistent profession, not just the absense of outward rebellion), then we bring them into communion. We teach them what they ought to know and do, the whole counsel of God's Word. The law requires obedience whether capable of obeying or not. The child's inability is no obstacle to teaching them their duty to the God who has set them apart from the world for that purpose. Ideally, they will see their inability, God will use their struggle to bring them to faith, a conversion experience. Notice, I did not say a "dramatic" conversion experience so don't even start with the "revivalistic" strawmen. ;)
 
Those of the PR position have been listed several times; would someone mind listing some of those who hold to the PE view?
 
Originally posted by RAS
Those of the PR position have been listed several times; would someone mind listing some of those who hold to the PE view?

A.A. Hodge, Thornwell, Dabney, Edwards, and A' Brakel come to mind at present.
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
But then if we only presume election, wouldn't we just preach the gospel until they professed? People aren't saved *usually* through devotionals etc....they are saved by the preaching of the gospel. Is that how we should raise our children? Or should we teach them the entire council of God as the leaders in the church do for the congregation? Do we treat them as if they will EVENTUALLY understand what we are telling them, or do we treat them as if they DO or ARE understanding the Word of God?

Just asking.

The gospel is always to be preached, even if you'v ebeen a Christian for 60 years. It not only saves, but sanctifies. We are prone to forget and must be reminded over and over again what Christ has done for us. Our children must be raised to be Christians. They are disciples. This is what Thornwell called the "heir-apparent" model. They are heirs of the kingdom, and must be raised accordingly. Once they demonstrate they have embraced their inheritance (faith in Christ with a consistent profession, not just the absense of outward rebellion), then we bring them into communion. We teach them what they ought to know and do, the whole counsel of God's Word. The law requires obedience whether capable of obeying or not. The child's inability is no obstacle to teaching them their duty to the God who has set them apart from the world for that purpose. Ideally, they will see their inability, God will use their struggle to bring them to faith, a conversion experience. Notice, I did not say a "dramatic" conversion experience so don't even start with the "revivalistic" strawmen. ;)

:ditto:

I would only add that in a family that recognizes God's personal presence through His Spirit, both in the house and in the heart, there can hardly help but be an awareness of that in the children as well. It is not just the preaching, but the practice in the family that comes out of truly believing what is preached.

Actually, reading this over again, I see that Patrick already implied this. Sorry for the repeat.
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
But then if we only presume election, wouldn't we just preach the gospel until they professed? People aren't saved *usually* through devotionals etc....they are saved by the preaching of the gospel. Is that how we should raise our children? Or should we teach them the entire council of God as the leaders in the church do for the congregation? Do we treat them as if they will EVENTUALLY understand what we are telling them, or do we treat them as if they DO or ARE understanding the Word of God?

Just asking.

The gospel is always to be preached, even if you'v ebeen a Christian for 60 years. It not only saves, but sanctifies. We are prone to forget and must be reminded over and over again what Christ has done for us. Our children must be raised to be Christians. They are disciples. This is what Thornwell called the "heir-apparent" model. They are heirs of the kingdom, and must be raised accordingly. Once they demonstrate they have embraced their inheritance (faith in Christ with a consistent profession, not just the absense of outward rebellion), then we bring them into communion. We teach them what they ought to know and do, the whole counsel of God's Word. The law requires obedience whether capable of obeying or not. The child's inability is no obstacle to teaching them their duty to the God who has set them apart from the world for that purpose. Ideally, they will see their inability, God will use their struggle to bring them to faith, a conversion experience. Notice, I did not say a "dramatic" conversion experience so don't even start with the "revivalistic" strawmen. ;)

No strawmen here! :cool:

My point wasn't that we aren't supposed to continue preaching the gospel, essentially that is what is done everytime we take the Lord's Supper.

My point is that PR seems to be a little more consistent with the practice of most Christian families. I don't know of many that will not let their children pray. Do you let your children pray? If you do, then do you presume that God hears them? Scripture says time and time again that God does not hear the prayers of unregenerates. They have no mediator (at this point at least) by which to approach the throne of grace! (at least from the PE perspective).

From my experience, it seems as if Christian families treat their children as little Christians, able to understand and believe the Word of God, pray to God, live a godly life (by the help of the Holy Spirit) etc. etc., but it seems to be a consistent PE, all of this (outside the preaching of the gospel) would only be heaping coals on their head. I sure wouldn't let me child pray if I presumed he didn't have a mediator! What kind of God would he be praying to?
 
Jeff,

One does not have to believe PR or PE to allow children to pray. As C. Hodge notes in his commentary on 1 Cor 7:14, children of Christians are Christians because they are born into the commonwealth of the visible church. When the church has a corporate prayer of confession, we do not tell folks that their children can not participate in that prayer.
 
Freinds, I wanted to share an essay below that I frequently read which deals with some of these same questions in a context that I find very helpful (written by the Rev. Bob Vincent of Grace Presbyterian Church in Alexandria, Lousiana).


http://tinyurl.com/aampy

Raising Children for God
Reflections from over the Hill

After we had been married for several years, God gave Sandy and me our first child, a precious little girl whom we named Lydia; she was named after the biblical character "œwhose heart the Lord opened to pay attention to the things being spoken by Paul." (Acts 16:14.) In deciding to name her Lydia, we were setting about to remind her and ourselves that she needed a sovereign work of grace in order to believe the gospel.

We had come to see in the confession of David, himself a child born within the covenant, a fitting confession for such children: "œSurely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5.) Furthermore, simply because Lydia was born of Christian parents, we did not see that she was exempt from David´s sobering words: "œEven from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies." (Psalm 58:3.)

We understood Saint Paul to be addressing people who had been born into heathen families, "œstrangers to the covenants of promise," (Ephesians 2:12.) when he wrote the first two verses of Ephesians two: "œAnd you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience." But we also understood that he did not mean to exclude others, who, like himself, were born to believing parents within God´s covenant, because he added in verse three: "œAmong them we, too, all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest."

Whatever extraordinary thing God might be pleased to work within certain children in the womb, as he did in the case of John the Baptist, (Luke 1:15, 41, 44.) we saw that our little girl would still need personally to appropriate the promises of the gospel for herself, and we regularly prayed for her to this end, even while she was in her mother´s womb. Back in February of 1971, within a few days of her birth, we presented her to the Lord during the worship service on the Lord´s Day; both the congregation and we made vows before God on her behalf when she was baptized. Lydia was raised in Church, dandled on our knees during the worship services to keep her from disturbing others. She participated in family worship, too, and early on was taught the Catechism for Young Children and attended Sunday school.

One Sunday afternoon, as we were waking up from our naps, she came and told her mother: "œI asked Jesus in my heart." Since she was three years old, we thought that perhaps her Sunday school teacher had put words in her mouth, and after the evening service, my wife chatted with her teacher about this. Such was not the case. This seemed to be something that Lydia had put together on her own. As she grew, she exhibited traits of being a true believer: she tried to live so as to please the Lord, and when she did wrong, she was remorseful; but having confessed her sins, she believed that God forgave her sins, and she didn´t walk in condemnation.

As with most children, Lydia had her ups and downs as she navigated the sometimes blustery seas of American adolescence; however, she always remained loyal to the Lord Jesus. In college she was always with the Lord´s people in Church on the Lord´s Day, and she also became involved in Campus Crusade for Christ, where on a summer project in Santa Cruz, California, she met her future husband. They married the week after Lydia graduated from college, and five years later her husband John was ordained as a teaching elder by the Palmetto Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America. We very much enjoy the spiritual fellowship we have with both John and Lydia, often telephoning each other with prayer needs and talking things out. They now have three sons and live seven hours away in Memphis, where John is an assistant pastor at Second Presbyterian. It is a joy to be in the same presbytery.

When was Lydia regenerated? I don´t know, but I´m sure that she has been. The big question isn´t when but that a person is born again. The new birth isn´t something that we can discern except by the fruit it bears in repentance and faith. Lydia´s whole life for the past almost thirty years is evidence that her wicked little heart was subdued by sovereign grace prior to that confession of faith when she was three. God gave us four more children after Lydia"”two more daughters and two sons; with one exception, all are active members of Christian congregations today.

Each child´s spiritual journey was unique, even as each child is unique. As we watched them grow up in the same church and home, we could see that even though each one came from the same genetic pool, each was quite different. What was a besetting sin for one, posed no temptation for another. Some were into sports, others into music and drama, and some were avid readers. One has a degree in sociology; another is an attorney; yet another aspires to become a foreign missionary, another is working towards becoming a professional counselor, and another is the manager of a small business. Three of them are married, and two have children of their own. But each one reacted differently to the adolescent eddies, where the river of childhood flows into the sea of adulthood; each took on some of the water of this world, and yet now, in the mercy of God, none of them is adrift; all are anchored in the safe harbor of the Church of God.

When children are very young, we can all be impressed by what appears to be spiritual aptitude. I remember how impressed other people always were with the structure of our home and with our very polite, obedient children so many years ago. But I also remember meeting with my session in January 1989 and offering to request that presbytery dissolve the pastoral relationship because I needed help to regain control of one of my children. This was less than four months after Sandy had come out of her coma, having been run over by a log truck on October 10, 1988; she was still using a wheelchair, recovering from her hip having been broken in three places. My mother was living with us, too, but touched with a measure of senile dementia, and one child was a toddler. It was a very sad and lonely time. But God was good, and his Church was good. The session paid for us to go once a week for counseling to Jackson, Mississippi. Seven to eight hours a week traveling together in a car helped to rebuild the somewhat fractured relationship between the two of us and our child, and I could once again read 1 Timothy 3:4, 5 and Titus 1:6 without feeling the need to resign from the ministry.

Back in the sixties when I had taken all those psychology courses, I was so sure that I would be a great father"”better than my own had been. Now, I am convinced that I don´t hold a candle to the man. I wish that he could hear me when I visit his grave; I´d like to tell him that, because I´m sure he picked up on my naïve pride when his grandchildren were young. New parents are often quite sure that if they will carefully follow Bill Gothard, James Dobson, Jay Adams or Larry Crabb, they´ll never know real anguish with their children; they imagine: if I do X, Y will be the result. But when I think about parenting, I am reminded of the King of Israel´s words to King Ben-hadad, "œLet not him who girds on his armor boast like him who takes it off." (1 Kings 20:11.) In part, that´s because even if our child is elect, we are not guaranteed that effectual calling will be experienced the same way it was with our Lydia.

Bringing children into the world is serious business, especially as we reflect on Acts 2:39: "œThe promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off"”for all whom the Lord our God will call." We have covenant promises given before and after Mount Sinai, confirmed to Gentiles under the New Covenant:

"œI will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you." (Genesis 17:7.)
"œThe Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live." (Deuteronomy 30:6.)
"œBelieve in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved"”you and your household." (Acts 16:31.)

But we also have the decree of election, a decree that extends both to strangers and in the line of our descendants, but a decree that does not promise us that every child born to believing parents is elect. God commanded Abraham to circumcise both Ishmael and Isaac in Genesis 17, yet Ishmael remained a lost man; it was with Isaac alone that God established his covenant. (Genesis 17:19.) Isaac in turn had two sons, Jacob and Esau; both received the sign of God´s favor, and yet God´s favor was on Jacob alone.

This brings us back to Acts 2:39, where we see something of both the continuity and discontinuity between the two Testaments. There is a difference, because God´s grace now richly extends far beyond the borders of Israel: "œThe promise is for . . . all who are far off." There is also continuity, because "œThe promise is for you and your children." But neither of these precepts is absolute; both are conditioned by God´s eternal, immutable decree: unconditional election that is followed by the call to come to Christ. But that call, while effectual for God´s elect, is not effectual for all who are far off or for all our children. Peter makes this clear, when he qualifies at the end of Acts 2:39, "œFor all whom the Lord our God will call."

Putting Acts 2:39 within the larger context of what the Bible teaches about salvation, I can say, if I know that my child has put her trust in the Lord Jesus Christ (Number 4 below), then I also know:

1.She has been unconditionally chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world;

2.She has been effectually called;

3.She has been born again;

4.She has come to God in true repentance and true faith;

5.She has been declared righteous by God based on the finished work of Christ, which she received by means of faith alone;

6.She has been adopted into God´s own family;

7.She has been sealed with the Holy Spirit; and, therefore is in the process of being sanctified;

8.She will continue to hold onto Christ and persevere to the end;

9.She will be glorified in both her soul and

10.She will be glorified in her body and enjoy God for all eternity.

The difficulty that the Christian parent faces is how we view our children before we see evidence of Number 4 above. This is a difficulty with which true Christians have wrestled over the past two millennia.
In many theological quarters it isn´t really that big a difficulty. For example, many modern Evangelicals see an age of accountability in those years prior to children being able "œto examine themselves." (cf. Larger Catechism 174.) Such parents tend not to become particularly anxious until their children begin to reach the end of this imagined age. However, the Scripture knows nothing of such a this-worldly limbo.

Within Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox circles, as long as children have been baptized, original sin has been washed away, and they have been introduced to God´s grace. In Tridentine theology, God´s grace is given ex opere operato (by the work having been performed.).

In some traditional Protestant circles, a judgment of charity is stretched into a presumption of regeneration, and children are encouraged to believe that they are true Christians unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, such as their apostatizing from the Church.

I cannot reconcile any of the above views with what I read in the Bible. While in charity I accept all who are part of the visible Church as Christians, I would never encourage individual professing Christians so charitably to view themselves. There is a very different approach in how we are to assess our own Spiritual condition from how we form our assessment of others.* While we do not wait for positive evidence of faith in others before accepting their professions of faith as genuine, such presumption with regard to ourselves could prove eternally deadly. We must never encourage others presumptively to rest in the hope of salvation apart from self-examination, the kind that regularly takes place under strong, soul-searching preaching.

So how did Sandy and I deal with our children? As with our first child, we taught her siblings the great truths of the Christian message through a variety of means: reading Bible stories to them, interacting with them about everyday events through the eyes of Scripture, catechizing them, putting them in Sunday school and the worship services of the Church. When they sinned, we corrected them and instructed them to seek not only the forgiveness of the humans they had wronged, but, above all, God´s forgiveness. And just as we always forgave them, so we encouraged them to believe that God does the same. We encouraged them to look to the Lord Jesus, to turn to him daily from their sins with godly sorrow, and to believe that their sins were forgiven for Jesus´ sake: "œIf we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9.) Yet we pressed them to self-examination and reminded them that it is only those who have the positive fruit of faith and repentance who should regard themselves as Christians. Just as circumcision did in the Old Testament, their baptism laid on them the obligation to make their "œcalling and election sure." (2 Peter 1:10.)

Above all we prayed with and for them; we still do. When we knelt by the bed of each one individually to pray, we prayed for many things that were on their minds, but we always prayed that the Lord would give them hearts to love and trust Jesus with. We pressed them to believe that when Jesus died on the cross and rose again, he did this for them. We always prayed that God would pardon all their sins for Jesus´ sake. We explained the meaning of their baptism and of the holy Supper, and when they expressed a desire to commune, we prepared them for a public profession of faith, so they could participate with us in this wonderful pledge of God´s grace in Christ.
As our children grew older, our prayers for them took on a new tone, one little known earlier. There was a growing sense of our own failure as parents, that even when we had done all we had been commanded to do"”which we could never bring ourselves to believe that we had done"”we should still say, "œWe are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done." (Luke 17:10.) Less and less did we reflect on what we were doing for our children; more and more our prayers became a bare pleading of God´s most gracious, covenant mercy for our children, mercy that extends to a thousand generations.

We taught our children to believe that there is more to the true knowledge of God than anyone in this world knows, and so we pressed them to seek the Lord Jesus with all their hearts and never to stop seeking him, not only to know more about God, the Bible and theology, but to know God himself, experientially, even mystically, and to remember that there is always more.

As our children have moved into adulthood, we have taken great joy in seeing them active in true churches of Christ. We are greatly blessed when they talk with us about decisions they need to make, especially when they make decisions that manifest a willingness to take up the Cross and follow in the footsteps of Jesus. Even in adulthood, our children sometimes call and confess sins. I deal with them as I do others: whenever people confess their sins, I always pray for them and speak God´s word of absolution, not sacerdotally, but as a herald of our all-merciful Sovereign who forgives all who confess their sins.

As with my fellowship with others, I take great comfort in the Christian fellowship I enjoy with my wife and increasingly with our adult children. But even with all that, God has not called me to be sure of anyone´s election but my own. (2 Peter 1:10.) The thought that even one of my precious children or grandchildren would spend eternity in a Christ-less hell brings me nothing but anguish, but the God whom I serve is a God who in his self-disclosure tells me that he is "œThe LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin." (Exodus 34:6, 7.) It is true that God does not leave the guilty unpunished and that he visits sin within the generations of the wicked, but he teaches us that the dominant motif in this hymn of his character is his mercy and love. In Christ, when I look at that "œmultitude that no one could number" of Revelation 7:9, I believe that I can trace the faces of all of my descendants there"”not arrogantly or presumptively, but not with a naked wish either. My hope is grounded in God´s gracious covenant, a covenant signed and sealed to believers and their children in baptism and the Supper.

Cordially in Christ,
Bob Vincent

* The most striking illustration of this comes from a comparison of what Jesus says in Matthew 12:30 with what he says in Mark 9:40. In Matthew 12:22-37 Jesus encounters strong opposition: the Pharisees accuse him of being in league with the devil. After answering their charges Jesus goes on to warn them of the great danger they are in: "œHe who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." (Matthew 12:30, 31.) After further warning Jesus tells them about the necessity of Spiritual fruit. Notice the focus on self judgment"”"œHe who is not with me is against me." (Matthew 12:30.) If I see no positive evidence that I am for Christ, I must conclude that I am against him.

How different is this standard of self-judgment from that by which we measure others. In Mark 9:38 we read, "˜"œTeacher," said John, "œwe saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."´

What is Jesus´ response? Jesus said, "œNo one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward." (Mark 9:39-41.) When we look at others, a different standard is to be used: "œWhoever is not against us is for us." (Mark 9:40.) If a person professes to be a follower of Christ, either with his lips or by wearing the mark of Christ´s ownership, baptism, we must accept him as such, unless we see positive evidence to the contrary.

This is what we may call a judgment of charity. Paul used the judgment of charity when he wrote to the church at Corinth. He addressed all of them as saints and brethren. (1 Corinthians 1:2, 10.) He regarded every one of them as fellow believers whom God had called, including, we may add, Stephanas´ children. (1 Corinthians 1:9, 16.) Did he mean that every person there was a true Christian? No, in fact he warns them to take a close look at themselves: "œExamine your selves to see whether you are in the faith; test your selves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you"”unless, of course, you fail the test?" (2 Corinthians 13:6.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top