Douglas Wilson's Standing on the Promises

[Semper Fidelis]

I assume you mean that the child professes unbelief, for who can know whether a child is an unbeliever or not?

Right.

Who is 'dismissing the whole concern'?

Though I was responding to your question, I wasn't implying you said it.

Are you talking about something you read in this thread, or is there another one as well?

I'm more generally explaining to any readers in general. I have a habit of responding to individual posts and making general observations that are not aimed at the person I quoted. I didn't meant to have you read my entire post existentially.

I'm all for elders having children that profess Christ, but I have even greater respect for a man whose children are faithful to their father in spite of their unbelief. I do not think Paul teaches (in Tim and Tit anyway) that an elder must have anything but children that are faithful to their father. I agree that it would be the exception and not the rule that an elder that ruleth well would have apostate children. And that reminds me that I need to redouble my prayers for the salvation of my children!

I don't know if I have any more or less respect for a believer if their father is an unbeliever. For my part, I would prefer a believing father as it is very painful otherwise. My larger point is that many downplay, far too much, the role and responsibility of parents to present Christ to their children. Even in Presbyterian Churches, with a history of catechetical instruction, I'm amazed at the general apathy that most parents have about teaching and praying with their children. It's most reflected in men that are content to remain ignorant and feel no real burden to teach their families. Keep the kids in line? Yes. Teach them theology? That's what Sunday School is for. {Note: this is a general observation Ken and not aimed at you }

 

[KMK]

My larger point is that many downplay, far too much, the role and responsibility of parents to present Christ to their children. Even in Presbyterian Churches, with a history of catechetical instruction, I'm amazed at the general apathy that most parents have about teaching and praying with their children. It's most reflected in men that are content to remain ignorant and feel no real burden to teach their families. Keep the kids in line? Yes. Teach them theology? That's what Sunday School is for. {Note: this is a general observation Ken and not aimed at you }

I agree with you and that is why I have a sympathetic attitude toward Sproul Jr, Wilson, and Phillips who are not necessarily held in high regard on PB. They helped pull me out of the malaise of which you speak. I wish that L. had written some books!

 

[Civbert]

My larger point is that many downplay, far too much, the role and responsibility of parents to present Christ to their children. Even in Presbyterian Churches, with a history of catechetical instruction, I'm amazed at the general apathy that most parents have about teaching and praying with their children. It's most reflected in men that are content to remain ignorant and feel no real burden to teach their families. Keep the kids in line? Yes. Teach them theology? That's what Sunday School is for. {Note: this is a general observation Ken and not aimed at you }

Do you homeschool your kids?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Do you homeschool your kids?

Yes, for now, although I'm not I'm not against the idea of a private school either. My point about teaching them is not that kids have to learn everything from their parents but parents are responsible for the training of their child - even when it is delegated to another.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Rich,
I am not seeing much difference in your position vs. Wilson besides you would keep accountability primarily only with the elders while he would basically hold the same standard to the laity.

CT

 

[Semper Fidelis]

CT,

Sometimes I think I write too much but maybe I didn't clarify enough.

I stated that, if holding men accountable for the state of their households was the only issue, then I would not necessarily have a problem with his basic position. The way he goes about arguing for it sometimes is strained exegetically when he can make the point without turning Proverbial passages into didactic passages.

The real problem is when he, and others more so, start to confuse the means themselves with God's elective benefits. This is when conditional election is re-defined to mean that all Covenant children participate in some of the benefits of the Elect (forgiveness of sins, union with Christ, etc) but only enjoy those benefits in a sense.

In brief, the difference between he and I is that I believe the Confessions speak plainly and fully on who receives the benefits of union with Christ - the Elect alone. Those joined to the visible administration of the Covenant do not participate, in any sense, in those benefits. We do not know who they are but it is yet important to maintain that Covenant membership does not mean that we are automatically "in Christ" until we apostasize.

I realize we seem close on our positions but the gulf is very large. Don't focus on the fact that we both agree that men ought to be held responsible for the spiritual well-being of the household. I repeatedly maintain that God elects according to the hidden counsel of His Will but His means have always included households. I also maintain that the Scriptures are replete with warnings to parents that children apostasize because they are not trained. To simply maintain that a child is not elect is an obvious fact at that point but it never lets the parent "off the hook" for being a means even to reprobation.

 

[Archlute]

The use of the term 'pistos' in the pastoral epistles regarding the children of elders is best taken as 'faithful' rather than 'believing'. Most of my commentaries are packed right now, but I believe it was a study of that term/passage in either the WBC by Mounce, or the NIGTC by Knight, that layed out a very convincing exegetical argument in favor of understanding it as 'faithful'.

Also, regarding the Covenant Successionism of Rayburn/Wilson/Schenk, there is an article written by prof. Alan Strange in the Mid-America Reformed Journal that gives a sound critique of that view in light of confessional Calvinism. He basically calls it an 'ex opere operato' view of parenting. There's much more to the argument than that, but that's the jab.

 

[Archlute]

One thing that a former prof of mine had to say about the CS view is that it has too high an expectation of parental ability, and too low a view of God's grace. He thought that if the supporters of that notion actually took a close look at even the most upright of minister's parental lapses, there could be found more than enough to damn any of his children - if salvation was rested upon our parenting and not upon God's sovereign and gracious choice.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The use of the term 'pistos' in the pastoral epistles regarding the children of elders is best taken as 'faithful' rather than 'believing'. Most of my commentaries are packed right now, but I believe it was a study of that term/passage in either the WBC by Mounce, or the NIGTC by Knight, that layed out a very convincing exegetical argument in favor of understanding it as 'faithful'.

Also, regarding the Covenant Successionism of Rayburn/Wilson/Schenk, there is an article written by prof. Alan Strange in the Mid-America Reformed Journal that gives a sound critique of that view in light of confessional Calvinism. He basically calls it an 'ex opere operato' view of parenting. There's much more to the argument than that, but that's the jab.

One thing that a former prof of mine had to say about the CS view is that it has too high an expectation of parental ability, and too low a view of God's grace. He thought that if the supporters of that notion actually took a close look at even the most upright of minister's parental lapses, there could be found more than enough to damn any of his children - if salvation was rested upon our parenting and not upon God's sovereign and gracious choice.

In case it's not clear, I agree with both of the above. I think I've stated twice that I don't think an unbelieving child automatically disqualifies a minister. I DO think the situation needs to be investigated and not blithely dismissed as is the habit of some.

I think the latter point is important. I've said this before that we can always look at our efforts, however well intentioned, and conclude that we did not do what we were commanded to do (as if we had the perfection of Christ in our parenting). This is why I maintain that we always give God the glory for the salvation of our children but cannot blame Him for their apostasy. It's a thing that drives you to your knees.

 

[Archlute]

Sorry if you thought I was directing all that at you specifically, Rich. I had just been skimming the posts, and wanted to toss in a few thoughts.

I agree with you that God can never be blamed for the unbelief of a child, nor should we take a poor home life lightly.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sorry if you thought I was directing all that at you specifically, Rich. I had just been skimming the posts, and wanted to toss in a few thoughts.

I agree with you that God can never be blamed for the unbelief of a child, nor should we take a poor home life lightly.

Hope that clears things up.

Adam,

Phew, I was kind of tied up this AM and waited a bit too long to go for a 6 mile run. It was hot outside this AM.

I actually didn't think you were directing at me. I really did appreciate the insight. I think it kind of provided a really nice wrapper to everything I was saying. There might have been some who thought I might disagree and I was trying to bring it in and show how it is compatible with what I was saying.

I like the way you put it with ex opere operato. With respect to our responsibilities and God's activity I prefer to leave that connection in the counsel of God. Even people that haven't taken the FV plunge will glom on to the whole Covenant child-rearing thing a bit too much and make that the central focus of their Christianity. I could write for hours about some of the subtle things that I've seen that capture people's attention instead of the Gospel that begin with good intentions.

 

[bookslover]

I remember hearing John MacArthur say once that, if one of his adult sons (at the time he spoke, all four of his children were grown and had homes of their own) robbed a bank, he (MacArthur) felt that he should resign his ministry. I remember thinking at the time, "Well, that's pretty stupid," since the Bible plainly teaches (in Ezekiel 18, for example) that all individuals are responsible for their own sins, not those of someone else.

Parents have a responsibility under God to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, but there are no guarantees that this will necessarily lead to their salvation, since not all children born to Christian parents are numbered among the elect.

In the case of an elder who has a child (or children) who are not believers, inquiries can be made. If the elder and his wife have been diligent before the Lord in their parental responsibilities, and the kid(s) still "go bad," well, the elder is not to be held responsible for that.

I realize that no one has said anything different, I'm just throwing my in there.

 

[KMK]

The use of the term 'pistos' in the pastoral epistles regarding the children of elders is best taken as 'faithful' rather than 'believing'.

Yeah...like the KJV.