Covenant Children

[blhowes]

I was thinking about (my understanding of) the reformed view of covenant children. I wanted to make sure I understand it correctly, and also ask a few questions.

I found these statements here:

According to Calvin the infants of believing parents belong to the church before they are engrafted into its visible membership by baptism. The child of a Christian parent is presumptively a Christian and an heir of eternal life.

Therefore, the promise of covenant relationship meaning what it does, the salvation of such infants is included in the promise: 'I will be a God to you and to your descendants after you' (Gen 17:7). Such children 'do not become the sons of God through baptism; but because, they are heirs of adoption, in virtue of the promise, therefore, the Church admits them to baptism.​

Is this generally what's believed by reformed Christians?

I was just wondering how reformed churches guide their children into assurance of salvation. I mean, on the one hand, (if I understand it correctly) they're taught that they are in covenant with God from birth, and heirs of eternal life/salvation. On the other hand, they're taught (I presume) not to take that for granted, but to "make their calling and election sure". How is this generally handled? (does that make sense?)

Concerning children of believers who, as it turns out, aren't saved - According to the reformed view, the children of believers who aren't saved, were they still in covenant with God?

Final question, what would you way is the #1 misunderstanding baptists have about the covenant children teaching?

 

[eqdj]

There are many views as to WHY "baptise" infants.
To be sure, Reformed Paedobaptists are not unamimous on this subject.

What I found intersting was Calvin's response to a letter he'd received from John Knox on 27 August 1559 inquiring "whether it be lawful to admit to the sacrament of baptism the children of idolaters and excommunicated persons before their parents have testified their repentance." I saw the response in (Scottish Presbyterian and Historian) David F. Wright's book. You can read it here: Godfathers, Calvin, and Knox... - BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Short answer: Robert Rayburn is not a voice for Reformed Orthodoxy on this matter.

Note his agenda in the article:

For all the books available defending paedobaptism, there is not presently in print, to my knowledge, a single work of substance and worth devoted to the doctrine of covenant succession, providing a Biblical exposition of the doctrine in its various parts, clearing objections, and applying the whole to the practicalities of child*rearing in the Christian home.

His argument is to establish a principle of Covenant Succession, which he believes the modern Presbyterian Church has abandoned.

It's not really practical to answer the questions you have about orthodox understanding of the practice in the way you have framed it. The thread will become hopelessly confused with those trying to answer the question and those interacting on Rayburn's ideas. Recommend you ask the question again, in a different way, without reference to how Rayburn frames the issue. I'm going to close the thread not because it's a bad question but because I don't really think it's going to be a profitable discussion given all the twists it could take.

You could actually split it up into two threads if you like:

1. Start a thread on the article in the Federal Vision forum and ask what is heterodox about what Rayburn writes.
2. Start another thread in paedo-baptism answers asking what we say concerning our children and what we think the biggest confusion that Baptists have concerning our beliefs.