Thread: Covenant Child vs. Unbeliever wrt Hypothetical Universalism

In the thread about hypothetical universalism, Rev Winzer said this:

What has become of the inspired logic of the apostle, Rom. 5:10, who argues, "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life?" or that of Rom. 8:34, where it is maintained that because Christ has died there is none to condemn those for whom He died? It has all become empty rhetoric; for the death of Jesus Christ, with all His saving benefits, is made hypothetical, conditional upon something the believer must do in order to complete the work.

My question is how a child who is baptised is in a different position than those to whom the gospel would be offered 'hypothetically'. It could be said of Samuel, though a covenant child brought up in the temple and obedient to all that he learned, that 'he did not yet know the Lord.' I was also baptized as an infant, was brought up learning to call God my God, was very obedient, until I realized that I was in desperate rebellion, naturally hated God and did not have, or want to have, any personal knowledge of Him. It isn't at all automatic in Scripture or in my experience (more widely than my own case) that a child who is born into and grows up in this covenant consciousness is repentant and believing; how then does their covenant status differ from someone to whom the atonement is offered hypothetically --to whom benefits in union with Christ are imputed, if only they would do something to complete the work? I don't know how to ask this with less confusion.

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

In the thread about hypothetical universalism, Rev Winzer said this:

What has become of the inspired logic of the apostle, Rom. 5:10, who argues, "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life?" or that of Rom. 8:34, where it is maintained that because Christ has died there is none to condemn those for whom He died? It has all become empty rhetoric; for the death of Jesus Christ, with all His saving benefits, is made hypothetical, conditional upon something the believer must do in order to complete the work.

My question is how a child who is baptised is in a different position than those to whom the gospel would be offered 'hypothetically'. It could be said of Samuel, though a covenant child brought up in the temple and obedient to all that he learned, that 'he did not yet know the Lord.' I was also baptized as an infant, was brought up learning to call God my God, was very obedient, until I realized that I was in desperate rebellion, naturally hated God and did not have, or want to have, any personal knowledge of Him. It isn't at all automatic in Scripture or in my experience (more widely than my own case) that a child who is born into and grows up in this covenant consciousness is repentant and believing; how then does their covenant status differ from someone to whom the atonement is offered hypothetically --to whom benefits in union with Christ are imputed, if only they would do something to complete the work? I don't know how to ask this with less confusion.

Don't have time to answer this fully, but here's a quick answer:

Now you certainly would recognize that the likelihood of a child coming to faith who is brought up in a faithful, God-fearing Christian home wherein they are partakers of the blessings of covenant family and church community life is much greater than a child of wicked pagans doing so. The groundwork is laid for a life of faith in the former, whereas in the case of the latter, there is nothing to stand on but the sand of human folly.

Now this isnt' to say that the former may not rebel and never come to faith, while the latter, upon the ministry of the Word at some point in his life, does come to faith. It can happen - but we're talking probabilities and the activity of the blessings of the covenant family.. and nobody ought to dispute which child is more likely to come into faith of his own.

You should also recognize that paedobaptists do recognize and urge upon their children the need to come to faith and repentance. Every person needs this - so in this sense, I suppose, the cases of the two are not different...union with Christ comes ONLY to those whom God has before the foundation of the world elected to salvation. But again you must recognize that their situations are VASTLY different - there is a great difference for them because God does use human means to accomplish his saving work, and the former child has a huge advantage in this way. (again, he may never come to faith, but that's not the point)

Well I'm happy that this new forum is getting a lot of use.

I'm trying to figure out the best way to answer this question and, maybe as the thread develops, the answer will become sharper.

The distinction between the Covenant of Redemption (CoR) and Covenant of Grace (CoG) is very useful in understanding this. One belongs to the decree of God, hidden in the Eternal counsel of the Godhead, while the other is revealed to us and our children.

Whenever someone asks about the baptism of infants as above I reflexively wonder: "Why is this question only applicable for infants?" That is to say, Heidi, when we answer the question for any baptized member the question is answered. Remember, a profession does not election make and so your question about hypothetical atonement could be aimed at any man who is doubting his salvation in the moment.

Matthew's post above concerns the intention of the Godhead. What is the mind of God and what benefits are offered to all. Reformed orthodoxy closely guards that the benefits of union with Christ (justification, sanctification, glorification) extend to the elect alone. When you understand the intent of God to fully and definitively save all those whom He has saved by His favor then your confidence in salvation is assured. Man's will is not the bedrock but God Himself.

But were we to simply read of this notion of the elect in the Scriptures we would be left with a problem: How could we possibly know if any are elect or if we are elect?

God Himself, in Deut 29:29 forbids that we should peer into hidden things but to rely upon the revealed things and teach them to our children.

Thus, God has given the Church Sacraments that provide a sort of thread of connection between the things hidden in His decree and our life in His Church. Remember, Baptism according to the Scriptures does not confer saving grace by the working of the works. Nor is the Church saying to the baptized that you are baptized because you have saving faith. Baptism points to the Promise of God and announces that salvation belongs to those who place their trust in Christ.

That might seem obvious but this is a minister in Christ's Church announcing this so he is God's mouthpiece at that point announcing the Promise that Abraham received. That Promise is backed up by a God that cannot lie as well as an oath confirmed by the same so that by two immutable things it is established.

Now, the real question for the baptized member then is this: do I believe the Gospel? If I do then I know that God has announced salvation to me in my baptism. That is assurance.

It's not: Did I have true faith when I was baptized? Every time the memory fades or Satan assails then it's time to re-baptize to re-build the assurance torn asunder.

But if I believe the Gospel then there's nothing hypothetical at all about Christ and His saving benefits. I am saved because God has promised it. God has sealed it to me. God would have to be torn asunder for the Promise to fail. I don't have to know the mind of God concerning the identity of all the elect nor do I have to question whether or not my faith was strong enough back when I was baptized. I know that I'm a beggar in need of the Cross and I have imperfect faith but it's enough to lay hold of Christ and, therefore, my Baptism assures me because God promised me at my baptism.

This is likely to be nothing more than a recast of what Todd and Rich have said, but ISTM the key point is that God is sovereign over all our circumstances, including to whom we're born, and in what part of the world, etc.

I didn't choose to be born in Fort Worth, to a family that attended an Episcopalian church. The LORD placed me in that situation.

A huge part of the world isn't placed in such a salubrious situation. They have instead been sovereignly placed where the gospel isn't preached, or anything close to it.

So whether it's an infant being baptized because the LORD placed him or her with a faithful Christian family, or an infant being baptized because it's expected but nothing much happens after that, or an adult showing up at Saddleback and after signing a card being handed a t-shirt and cheerfully pointed to where the baptisms are taking place, or an adult being baptized after having attended a doctrinally sound church for years, the common denominator in all of them is that to a greater or lesser extent, they were all placed - at some point - where Christ Jesus is preached.

And that was not a coincidence. No one is physically placed by accident so as to be where Christ is preached.

It's sort of like a series of rings that spread out when a rock is tossed into a pool of water. Where the rock lands there is a splash, but then the effect spreads out and diminishes.

Some people are placed so as to be drenched in the initial splash, while others are placed a bit farther out, and others farther out still, and so on. Just being in a nation where the gospel can be - and is - preached without hindrance is a blessing. Millions are not so happily situated.

I've pointed out to Dmitry on multiple occasions that others in his orphanage weren't adopted at all, so have likely still never heard the gospel in the pure, bold form he's been blessed to hear. The LORD arranged for him to be removed from where he virtually never heard about Christ, to being part of a family that attends a church where the gospel is proclaimed every week. This is a huge sign of divine favor, and places Dmitry in an increased obligation to obey the Word.

I'm reminded of a biography of Hudson Taylor, after he'd finally arrived in China and been used to bring a Chinese man to faith in Christ. The two of them were walking along and the convert asked Taylor how long England had had the gospel. Not seeing the chasm opening up in front of him, Taylor told his companion that England had been Christian for centuries, which caused the other man to stop in his tracks and stare at him. "Oh," he cried, "why didn't you come sooner? How I would have loved for my father to have heard of Jesus before he died. I wish you'd come sooner!"

Truth is, the gospel arrived in China right when the LORD determined it should. The LORD sovereignly arranged for that man to hear His Word and be saved, but did not provide the same opportunity to his father.

Knowing one has been baptized as an infant ought to act as a salient reminder that unlike much of the world's population, God had placed one under the umbrella of the Church.

Anne,

Are you paedo-baptist now?

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Anne,

Are you paedo-baptist now?

I'm not one who advocates any type of spiritual transformation taking place when someone is baptized, of whatever age.

But I'm absolutely in favor of children of faithful families being baptized, both as a sign of how we ourselves can do nothing to save ourselves (an infant has zip-squat to do with being baptized, which was doubtless Rev. Winzer's point...we cannot force the Holy Spirit to wash our souls clean any more than an infant can force his parents to wash him), and as an act of faith and obedience on the part of the parents.

What I emphatically reject is when the latter is skewed (IMO) into a form of "You have to have your babies baptized otherwise they're being denied grace!"

Talk about works-righteousness...it took me ages to figure out that viewpoint isn't an integral part of paedobaptism. I naturally believed that back when I was RC, but it fritzed me out when I'd hear much the same thing from many Protestant paedos.

Those who are being discipled ought to be baptized, including the wee ones. Discipleship and baptism are surely intertwined.

I appreciate the answers and explanations very much; thank you. So far it seems that only Rich understands the exact point about which I am troubled , though (which I know is because of my own confusion in expressing things). I would also add, though I don't really want it to develop into a discussion on this thread, that I think thinking in terms of the probabilities of what God will do is very unhelpful. I think we can have hope and expectations that God will bless the means He has instituted; but when I take that to the point of determining the greater probability of my child being saved than the neighbor's, I ought to remember that the Jews had no expectation of being cut off while the Gentiles were brought in.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Well I'm happy that this new forum is getting a lot of use.

:-) I hope I'm not over-using: now that I can ask my questions without hostility I'm understanding a lot, but it's raising further questions.

...The distinction between the Covenant of Redemption (CoR) and Covenant of Grace (CoG) is very useful in understanding this. One belongs to the decree of God, hidden in the Eternal counsel of the Godhead, while the other is revealed to us and our children.

Whenever someone asks about the baptism of infants as above I reflexively wonder: "Why is this question only applicable for infants?" That is to say, Heidi, when we answer the question for any baptized member the question is answered. Remember, a profession does not election make and so your question about hypothetical atonement could be aimed at any man who is doubting his salvation in the moment.

I think it will probably come to down to a matter of distinguishing properly, but at the moment I'm just having trouble understanding how an infant can be initiated into the Covenant with all the benefits of union with Christ that entails, while those benefits are conditional on whether the infant grows up in repentance and belief (or repents and believes at a later point). I understood the baptist position (and the reason that baptists re-baptize upon conversion, even if a person has been baptised after coming of age before) to be that no one is 'really' in the covenant unless they are elect: being in the covenant community, even being baptised, doesn't initiate you into anything other than an external, or bring you any benefits. The paedo position seems (if I'm not misunderstanding) to entail a little bit more fullness of what a person is brought into merely by being baptised, and this baptism taking place once for all regardless of future conversion. This seems to place the infant in a position that was argued as untenable and as a doctrine that damages assurance in the context of hypothetical universalism: the benefits are purchased for the infant as being a member of the covenant, but it depends on the infant to receive them?

I'm not rejecting this view as unbiblical given the passages in Hebrews about trampling the blood wherewith one is purchased underfoot, simply seeking to clarify it and how it can be consistently applied to those outside and inside the covenant community, without causing people stumble into greater doubt.

{to try to clarify: it was said earlier that the different view of children between credo/paedo works out to: 'I believe, therefore God is my God' vs. 'God is my God, therefore I believe.' I think the difference here is similar: we can say to the person outside the covenant based on the sufficiency of Christ's work and what is revealed: 'If you believe, all these benefits in Christ are yours' but we object to saying 'All of these benefits in Christ are yours: you just have to believe to receive them'. Yet that is exactly what is said to many in the covenant on a paedo view?}

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

My question is how a child who is baptised is in a different position than those to whom the gospel would be offered 'hypothetically'.

Is this the question that is being answered?

It sounds like the posters are trying to answer a different question: "How is a child who is born into church going family in a different position than those who are not?"

Maybe I am not understanding the question properly...

Ken, that was a most helpful clarification of the question I meant to ask. Yes, you are understanding the question. Thanks.

What is the material, practical difference between kindergarten-age Polly Presbyterian, who was baptized as an infant and is being raised in the nurture and admonition of the LORD by God-fearing parents, and kindergarten-age Barry Baptist, who was not baptized but is also being raised in the nurture and admonition of the LORD by God-fearing parents?

Probably gonna get jumped on, but I don't think there is any particular difference.

One of the pastors at my church and his wife are seeking to adopt a baby. ISTM if the choice by a Christian birth-mother were to come down to that couple, who wouldn't have the infant baptized but would be earnestly and enthusiastically teaching little poppet about Christ from the first day she arrives, and a couple who would have baby baptized but then pretty much drop the whole thing, relying upon Sunday school some years down the road to provide instruction in the ways of the LORD, the best choice would be credo couple.

Surely it's better to delay baptism but actually train and teach the child about Jesus, than to have the child baptized early and leave it at that until she's old enough for formal religious instruction.

I remember asking an enthusiastic paedobaptist a few years ago about the practical benefit that Polly Presbyterian has over Barry Baptist, but couldn't get any more detailed explanation than "Much in every way!"

Which didn't actually explain anything.

Is this what you're asking about, Heidi, or have I still missed the boat and am dog-paddling off the dock?

Anne, I find what you are saying refreshing but no, I am not wondering so much what the difference is between a baptised and an unbaptised child; as what the difference is between a baptised infant on paedobaptist views of the covenant (as represented by others on the board, and following from baptism being a one time initiation into the covenant), and the unbeliever should we accept hypothetical universalistic views of the atonement. The child seems to be in a position of having all the benefits of the covenant purchased for him, if only he will do something and secure them: but we reject this kind of thinking when it comes to hypothetical universalism --one reason being that it does not minister to the assurance of the saints.

For me it's helpful to understand that baptism is not our sign of commitment to or faith in God, but God's "sign and seal" of His Covenant of Grace to us, as he says in Genesis 17:7: "to be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee." Thus baptism into the visible church for infants is a way of God signifying that, just as children were circumcised and thus symbolically brought into a set apart community in the Old Testament, so now children of believing parents are brought into the set apart community of the visible church. So the expectation, from a human perspective, is that the child will remain in the visible church and will be saved by grace in the fullness of God's time.

So practically speaking, in terms of their salvation, there is no difference between the infant who has been physically baptized and the infant who has not, because the physical act does not confer salvation. However, the baptized infant is already considered a part of God's visible church according to the Covenant of Grace, so the eventual salvation of that infant (assuming they are elect), is something we expect to happen, since they are already sealed into the visible church, and already are partakers of all its benefits.

So the key difference between baptized infants and unbaptized infants is (in my mind) that baptized infants are physically given the sign of being considered set apart and "holy" (I Corinthians 7:14) as a part of God's church.

just a note: I asked Ruben to change the title of the thread because it seems like I must have led people astray by framing the discussion in terms of assurance. I am primarily concerned about how the answer relates to assurance, but my question is not about the difference between a baptised and unbaptised child (please read my previous post to Anne).

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Anne, I find what you are saying refreshing but no, I am not wondering so much what the difference is between a baptised and an unbaptised child; as what the difference is between a baptised infant on paedobaptist views of the covenant (as represented by others on the board, and following from baptism being a one time initiation into the covenant), and the unbeliever should we accept hypothetical universalistic views of the atonement. The child seems to be in a position of having all the benefits of the covenant purchased for him, if only he will do something and secure them: but we reject this kind of thinking when it comes to hypothetical universalism --one reason being that it does not minister to the assurance of the saints.

Then I'm going to do that which I don't do near often enough, which is put my hand over my mouth and pipe down. ;^)

Not at all, dear Anne. I sincerely appreciate the patience, willingness, trouble that goes into everyone's answers to try to help me understand.

Rich has helpfully pointed us to Deut. 29:29 and the distinction between the secret and revealed things of God. It is also helpful to keep in mind the difference between promise and fulfilment. I would not say that the benefits of Christ belong hypothetically to any person on condition of something they must do. They belong to those in Christ Jesus, and the act of ingrafting a soul into Christ is the work of God alone, 1 Cor. 1:30. But the promise of these blessings is given to the visible church, Heb. 12:22-25. The fearful reality is that some in the visible church refuse Him that speaks from heaven and thereby fail to become partakers of the blessings promised, suffering rather the curses of God's covenant. We do not hide this reality from our children, but endeavour to faithfully present it in conjunction with the promises of the covenant, and seek the gracious face of our heavenly Father to shine upon these little ones and make them partakers of His grace.

Thank you, Rev. Winzer. If I am understanding you correctly, then you are making a distinction between being brought into the administration of the promises and being brought into the promises themselves: but as Rich pointed out also, the one belongs to us by revelation, and the other to the secret counsel of God.

You would not then, say to a covenant child 'all of these blessings in Christ are yours: you just have to believe to receive them' any more than to an unbeliever --this is simply a wrong and unhelpful manner in which to present the benefits of a sufficient atonement? (and it goes beyond what is revealed?)

But you would say 'the promises belong to you (as being brought into the instituted, visible administration of them), if you do not refuse Him that speaks'?

If I'm missing something, could you expand on the distinction a little more? I think I'm beginning to see it (I can sense that it's there, but am still having trouble formulating it in my own thoughts) but the two things, as I've stated them, still sound so nearly the same.

I don't believe that Rev. Winzer would state that we do not enjoin our children to believe the Gospel - to believe the Promise announced to them at their baptism.

I'm glad that you brought up the fact that what I presented is very consistent with something like the Book of Hebrews.

It's been asked: "What is the difference between a child that hasn't been baptized at all and one that has been baptized?"

Of course this all depends on the quality of instruction that is going on but it is like asking what is the difference between discipleship on the basis of two completely different paradigms. It's sort of strange for my ears to hear: what difference does it make for the Church to know who it is discipling and what it teaches those disciples.

One's view of baptism has a profound view of what that deliberate activity is, which I have tried to articulate in other threads. If baptism is a declaration by the individual that "...I have been born again..." and merely the Church's recognition of something the individual is primarily saying then that is significantly different than the announcement of a Promise where the Church is not providing, per se, a visible sanction of the certain eternal state of the individual but is announcing the Promise as well as its earnestness to train toward that end.

Put another way, is baptism viewed as something that has been definitely achieved or, like Hebrews, does it place the person within the New Covenant where all must fear lest they shrink away from the promise. Whether or not one believes that Hebrews 10 speaks only hypothetically of New Covenant believers falling into the hands of the Living God says a lot about how they'll hope for one another and press forward toward faith even as the Saints in the OC did.

In other words, the quality of discipleship is not whether someone got wet at a certain age but, infant or adult baptized, what they believe they are actually about in the whole discipleship enterprise. Hence, the real question isn't what's the difference between a Baptist child who has not been baptized and a Presbyterian child that has but, rather, what's the difference between a baptized believer in a Presbyterian Church that understands its role and the baptized and unbaptized believers in a Baptist Church. As I've stated before, I believe the main defect to Baptist ordinances is the impoverishment of discipleship itself.

Getting back finally to the child or adult within the Body that has been baptized, let us not forget then that we are all among those who have had the News revealed to us. We have tasted the heavenly gift. Like a person at any age, we are enjoined to believe the report. We are not asked to hypothesize about whether or not God has elected us. We are commanded to believe. If we are given faith from above then God be praised not only for His grace but the means of His Church toward that end.

For those that shrink back, however, we are not to simply shake our heads and say: "Well God didn't give you faith...." God forbid. That would be peering into things hidden. We consider ways in which we may spur one another onward. As far as we are concerned there is nothing hypothetical about visible means. We are to pray for and spur one another on with all of our might. Let God be God with His hidden decree, let us be the Church with respect to how we avail ourselves of His visible means of grace and encourage one another toward His ends.

Simply because we are certain of God's command regarding His visible means does not require us to announce a hypothetical intent in the decree of God.

Rich,

Do the better books on baptism from a paedo perspective make as much use of the Hebrews material as you do? If so, which ones?

Maybe it is the format, less argumentative and confrontational, or the gracious way in which Heidi puts forth her questions, but this is a MUCH more useful (IMO) baptism thread than most that I have read this past year. Your use of Hebrews is a bit of an epiphany for me. It certainly makes your argument seem to cohere better than the paedo case I had heard prior to this.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Rich,

Do the better books on baptism from a paedo perspective make as much use of the Hebrews material as you do? If so, which ones?

Maybe it is the format, less argumentative and confrontational, or the gracious way in which Heidi puts forth her questions, but this is a MUCH more useful (IMO) baptism thread than most that I have read this past year. Your use of Hebrews is a bit of an epiphany for me. It certainly makes your argument seem to cohere better than the paedo case I had heard prior to this.

I don't know how much other books on baptism focus on this point Dennis. Some of my observations are a combination of the Confessions' teaching on certain things combined with the Puritans and my own study of the Scriptures. Hebrews especially pops out for me right now because I have been studying it a lot. FWIW, the few books I have read on Baptism don't tend to focus on it as much as I believe they should. All of the above may seem like a "preaching to the choir" but there are a lot of paedo-baptists that really need to consider the us in the repeated admonitions of Hebrews of "Let us fear together..." Many of the books on paedo-baptism focused my attention on Covenant but I remember being confused myself on that point. I used to buy into the mistaken notion that I should naturally expect my children to continue in the faith and that calling on them to believe would be too revivalistic . I now don't have a revival mentality concerning it but I do have a more Biblical and Reformed view that we ought to be constantly enjoining one another to "improve our baptism" as WLC 167 speaks of.

I had always been convinced of the paedo position but a very incidental comment made on the nature of discipleship by Matthew Winzer when I was at his house in June 2007 gave me an "Ah ha!" moment regarding much of this stuff. I also think I've just come to appreciate the CoR/CoG distinction more in recent months after reading Horton's most recent book Covenant and Salvation and Robertson's Christ of the Covenants.

When I mentioned to Heidi that I am gratified this new format was getting a lot of use I really meant it. I appreciate being able to present a positive case for my view for those that want to understand it. In fact, some of the most highly rated threads of the past were those where I sort of forced a dialogue and asked that credos simply answer some questions of me or vice versa.

My interest in Baptism has always been from the standpoint that we live in the real world and the words that God speaks to us through His Word and the visible Sacraments He gives to us to hold forth Christ have a powerful pedagogical effect on how we understand the Gospel in the real world. Some of my most gratifying moments have been to relate to men and women in real Churches who are struggling mightily with sin and, especially, assurance as a result. To be able to explain to them the Promise of God and focus their attention away from the strength of their faith to the presence of faith in the Cross of Christ is always amazing to see when they say "Ah ha!" for themselves.

When people start to understand what God is holding forth both in the Words uttered in the preaching of the Word as well as what He visibly holds forth to us in His Sacraments then the doxology that pours forth is remarkable.