Servus Christi
Puritan Board Freshman
Are unregenerate babies of believing parents under the covenant of grace or works or both (if so what is their standing in each); is their federal head Christ or Adam?
Paedo-Baptism Answers Covenant Headship
- Thread starter Servus Christi
- Start date
- Status
Since "the wind bloweth where it will,... so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit," and we have no insight into the beginning of that work in the heart of a covenant child, I don't see how we as Reformed folk have much impetus to devote time and effort to this line of inquiry.
So far as we know and are obliged, the child of believers is to be treated and regarded as one who is a member of the visible church. Our concern is not the hidden status of a person in relation to God, regardless of his age or the nature and facility of his profession; but whether he has the right to be fairly regarded from an outward observation as a Christian. One who has a public profession should be conducting himself in conformity to it; while one who has not yet a public profession should be taught and trained in the faith and life of profession.
We understand there are two ways of being in the covenant of grace: the outward administration and the inward. A full and proper entrance to covenant relation is in both kinds. Our children via infant baptism are visibly within the covenant of grace, for we have no other observation of them, and are duty bound to regard them as such unless they become outcast (by discipline). God tells us to regard them as minor (underage) partakers of the privileges of covenant membership. So, in this sense they are under the covenant of grace, they belong to the visible administration of it.
Of course, we know that there are false sons within the pale of the church. Some of them are tall and respectable outwardly, hiding their false devotion under a pious front, and fine sounding words. Is this theoretically unregenerate person under the covenant of grace? Outwardly, we believe him to be, and justly regard him so, even according to his profession. Unless he is excommunicated from the church, he remains within the visible administration, to all observation a Christian; when in fact his heart is dark and he is secretly bound to the covenant of works--his plainly worded profession of faith is vain.
You could theorize concerning the infant: that he might not yet be a child of God in terms of an historic regenerated condition. But why? The inquiry as to who is his proper federal head seems like an improper question. Is this person under discipline, about to be cut off from his people? Of course not, therefore I do not have the right to question my eyes with respect of him, that he is a baptized member in good standing, attending (brought) to the means of grace whereby he is being prepared for heaven. Where (how far along) the process of his hopeful sanctification he may be, I don't know, any more than I know the hopeful progress of an adult member. Everyone in the congregation, then, regardless of their age, is subject to Christ as head not only of the invisible church but the visible.
Only when we adopt alien (not Reformed) perspectives on membership, on what is expected for members in order for us to make a "safe" supposition that Christ really is the head of this person, do questions like: "Who is the federal head of this presumably unregenerate person?" arise. Do we have the right to presume anything about the child, e.g. that he is unregenerate? Some of the Reformed have gone the other way, and presumed regeneration. "Presumptive regeneration," the term tends to be associated with cavalier assumptions about election and conversion, and a certain formulaic induction for admission to the Table. Let us leave off presuming anything, other than God ordinarily works by his appointed means to work faith and its results in his people.
Truly, a man is either in Adam (and the covenant of works) or in Christ (and the covenant of grace). When does a man pass from death to life? When does the definitive spiritual heart-work begin? Natural childbirth is usually a process, taking shorter or longer time, accompanied by more trauma or less of it; why regard spiritual birth as anything else? Too much energy is expended worrying if it's OK yet to say so-and-so is safe to call a Christian. I guess the concern is for giving a man false confidence, when he's but "half a Christian," and so short-circuiting conversion, leaving it unfinished and therefore stillbirth. That perspective on conversion, membership, and covenant relation has its theological origins in another tradition, or corruption of ours.
We should regard our children as not only proper subjects of baptism, but as proper subjects of regular, weekly, lifelong gospel preaching, for the formation of and expression of saving faith. Here's the thing: we should regard adults in exactly the same way. If we never outgrow our need for the gospel, if "the hour I first believed" is something to be thankful for but not overmuch, if it is more to my interest that I am presently being saved and will be saved than that I was saved some time ago; anyone's interest in a growing relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ is part and parcel of a citizen's interest in his kingdom identity.
So far as we know and are obliged, the child of believers is to be treated and regarded as one who is a member of the visible church. Our concern is not the hidden status of a person in relation to God, regardless of his age or the nature and facility of his profession; but whether he has the right to be fairly regarded from an outward observation as a Christian. One who has a public profession should be conducting himself in conformity to it; while one who has not yet a public profession should be taught and trained in the faith and life of profession.
We understand there are two ways of being in the covenant of grace: the outward administration and the inward. A full and proper entrance to covenant relation is in both kinds. Our children via infant baptism are visibly within the covenant of grace, for we have no other observation of them, and are duty bound to regard them as such unless they become outcast (by discipline). God tells us to regard them as minor (underage) partakers of the privileges of covenant membership. So, in this sense they are under the covenant of grace, they belong to the visible administration of it.
Of course, we know that there are false sons within the pale of the church. Some of them are tall and respectable outwardly, hiding their false devotion under a pious front, and fine sounding words. Is this theoretically unregenerate person under the covenant of grace? Outwardly, we believe him to be, and justly regard him so, even according to his profession. Unless he is excommunicated from the church, he remains within the visible administration, to all observation a Christian; when in fact his heart is dark and he is secretly bound to the covenant of works--his plainly worded profession of faith is vain.
You could theorize concerning the infant: that he might not yet be a child of God in terms of an historic regenerated condition. But why? The inquiry as to who is his proper federal head seems like an improper question. Is this person under discipline, about to be cut off from his people? Of course not, therefore I do not have the right to question my eyes with respect of him, that he is a baptized member in good standing, attending (brought) to the means of grace whereby he is being prepared for heaven. Where (how far along) the process of his hopeful sanctification he may be, I don't know, any more than I know the hopeful progress of an adult member. Everyone in the congregation, then, regardless of their age, is subject to Christ as head not only of the invisible church but the visible.
Only when we adopt alien (not Reformed) perspectives on membership, on what is expected for members in order for us to make a "safe" supposition that Christ really is the head of this person, do questions like: "Who is the federal head of this presumably unregenerate person?" arise. Do we have the right to presume anything about the child, e.g. that he is unregenerate? Some of the Reformed have gone the other way, and presumed regeneration. "Presumptive regeneration," the term tends to be associated with cavalier assumptions about election and conversion, and a certain formulaic induction for admission to the Table. Let us leave off presuming anything, other than God ordinarily works by his appointed means to work faith and its results in his people.
Truly, a man is either in Adam (and the covenant of works) or in Christ (and the covenant of grace). When does a man pass from death to life? When does the definitive spiritual heart-work begin? Natural childbirth is usually a process, taking shorter or longer time, accompanied by more trauma or less of it; why regard spiritual birth as anything else? Too much energy is expended worrying if it's OK yet to say so-and-so is safe to call a Christian. I guess the concern is for giving a man false confidence, when he's but "half a Christian," and so short-circuiting conversion, leaving it unfinished and therefore stillbirth. That perspective on conversion, membership, and covenant relation has its theological origins in another tradition, or corruption of ours.
We should regard our children as not only proper subjects of baptism, but as proper subjects of regular, weekly, lifelong gospel preaching, for the formation of and expression of saving faith. Here's the thing: we should regard adults in exactly the same way. If we never outgrow our need for the gospel, if "the hour I first believed" is something to be thankful for but not overmuch, if it is more to my interest that I am presently being saved and will be saved than that I was saved some time ago; anyone's interest in a growing relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ is part and parcel of a citizen's interest in his kingdom identity.
- Status
Similar threads
