Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Huge Difference This presumption makes a huge difference to our parenting. Instead of repeatedly telling children that they are born dead in trespasses and sins and need to be converted to Christ (my own childhood experience of Presbyterianism), they are told, “You are a Christian…act like one.”
Thanks you for sharing that article. We dealt with a lot of that when we attended a PCA church for several years.
Huge Difference This presumption makes a huge difference to our parenting. Instead of repeatedly telling children that they are born dead in trespasses and sins and need to be converted to Christ (my own childhood experience of Presbyterianism), they are told, “You are a Christian…act like one.”
Similarly, my sons are Christians
Pastor Lewis, I appreciated the article in the fact that it points out the need for Paedobaptist parents to teach their children about their sin nature and need of a Savior. I just wouldn't have gone as far as David Murray does, in saying that he'd rather err with the Baptists. I was raised in a Baptist church and to me it seemed that the Baptists were presumptive in their own way. All children are presumed to be heathen until they prove themselves otherwise. Even baptized children, who have made profession of faith, in certain Baptist churches are still under a good deal of continual scrutiny regarding their salvation. It seemed to me that a lot of children were driven away from the church by this harmful attitude. I rejoice to say that all of our children are baptized, by God's grace, and we refer to ourselves as a Christian family. Dr. Beeke has some great resources on bringing the gospel to our Covenant children.
Pastor Lewis, I appreciated the article in the fact that it points out the need for Paedobaptist parents to teach their children about their sin nature and need of a Savior. I just wouldn't have gone as far as David Murray does, in saying that he'd rather err with the Baptists. I was raised in a Baptist church and to me it seemed that the Baptists were presumptive in their own way. All children are presumed to be heathen until they prove themselves otherwise. Even baptized children, who have made profession of faith, in certain Baptist churches are still under a good deal of continual scrutiny regarding their salvation. It seemed to me that a lot of children were driven away from the church by this harmful attitude. I rejoice to say that all of our children are baptized, by God's grace, and we refer to ourselves as a Christian family. Dr. Beeke has some great resources on bringing the gospel to our Covenant children.
I was also raised in a baptist church and home, so I also know from whence I speak. I think what Dr. Murray is trying to convey is the Puritan principle that even children who are born in a covenant home, and are addressed as members of the Church of God, are still in need of a one-to one correlation between sinner and Savior. I can't speak for everyone's experience, only my own. I see the concern Dr. Murray has, perhaps because we run in the same circles, and I am sympathetic to his observations as they now stand in some circles. To tell our children the truth is best for their souls, and that is, though they are born into the covenant community, there is no less the command that they turn and flee unto Christ as a personal Savior, thus ratifying the covenant placed upon them at baptism. I found great help in reading Samuel Rutherford's "The Covenant of Life Opened". In so doing, I discovered a proper treatment of the way in which "Our Children are, and are not in the Covenant of Grace." The promises of the covenant become the pleading ground at the throne of grace, that the Lord would do a saving work in the hearts of our children. This is what Dr. Murray is aiming at so far as I can tell.
Kind regards,
Similarly, my sons are Christians
Miss Marple what, if I may ask, is your doctrine of total depravity? Were your children born as fallen sinners in need of saving grace?
I thought it was a good article in terms of provoking paedobaptists to think about the need to improve their baptism but I think it leaves the unfortunate impression that if parents thought more like Baptist who are pressing upon their kids the need to close with Christ that it would be a preferable "error". If the article is to warn against the errors of falling too hard on one side or the other, I would rather choose neither.
I fully agree that the error espoused by some that baptism confers saving grace ex opere operato or that good parenting ensures that our kids remain in the Covenant is an extremely dangerous error. I was once very tempted by the notion of Covenant succession reasoning that God somehow would give me elect kids if I simply applied the Proverbial principles properly. Thankfully, that was before I had kids and began damaging them with this theology. The Reformed Church's repudiation of the Federal Vision makes clear that this is not our Confession but it still infects many.
Nevertheless, if we're going to be concerned about the "extremes" of the errors, is the error that once we have seen the child "converted" and subsequently baptized that we're confident of his salvation any less a very serious error? In other words, parents ought to be rightly concerned that their children see themselves as sinners and in the need of the atoning work of Christ but there is in many Baptist circles (note I did not say all) a notion that once the person has made a profession that the Church deems credible that the child is assuredly one of Christ's own - a converted, adopted child of God. The administration of baptism is the Church's way of saying, in effect: "We are convinced you are Christ's by your profession and so we baptize you." Is it not common to hear of people noting the time of their conversion as a fixed event with confidence that the work of salvation has been completed?
In other words, in the extreme paedobaptist, the problem is a presumption of salvation based on baptism whereas in the extreme baptist there is a presumption of salvation by profession.
It's my belief that a Biblical understanding of what it is to be a disciple is of utmost importance and this cannot be solved by appealing to two poles that miss the mark.
I don't, for a single minute, believe that my children are saved by my parenting. Any illusions of that have long dissipated as I'm too aware of the sin in my heart and the sin I commit even when I'm trying to discipline them toward the end that they would grow in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Every night, when I pray for the kids, I pray for their conversion. For that matter, I pray for the continued conversion of Sonya and me. I was made a disciple long ago by baptism and the Church continues to teach me everything that Christ has commanded. I press in and strive with the rest of the Body of Christ to lay hold of Christ daily. My children may be more immature and I have less knowledge about what they can intellectualize about the faith but our duty is essentially the same.
I hope, some day, to see them confessing Christ with an adult maturity but I will never cease calling them unto Christ as long as I have breath. This is a marathon and there's no point at which we've arrived. Oh, for sure, I know that Justification is a certain event but as we are united to Christ by faith we are being saved and it is not mine to know or care where a person is on the spectrum of being converted to Christ initially in Justification or being converted daily in the process of sanctification. I simply continue to desperately cling to Him and plead with my wife, my children, and all around me to cling to Him as well.
In other words, in the extreme paedobaptist, the problem is a presumption of salvation based on baptism whereas in the extreme baptist there is a presumption of salvation by profession.
If I may, I think the problem with this statement is that you are placing too much emphasis on being more or less confident as key."Lower confidence better than false confidence" rings true to me in the lack of any explicit NT example of baptism of any save for baptism of new disciples.
I was also raised in a baptist church and home, so I also know from whence I speak. I think what Dr. Murray is trying to convey is the Puritan principle that even children who are born in a covenant home, and are addressed as members of the Church of God, are still in need of a one-to one correlation between sinner and Savior. I can't speak for everyone's experience, only my own. I see the concern Dr. Murray has, perhaps because we run in the same circles, and I am sympathetic to his observations as they now stand in some circles. To tell our children the truth is best for their souls, and that is, though they are born into the covenant community, there is no less the command that they turn and flee unto Christ as a personal Savior, thus ratifying the covenant placed upon them at baptism. I found great help in reading Samuel Rutherford's "The Covenant of Life Opened". In so doing, I discovered a proper treatment of the way in which "Our Children are, and are not in the Covenant of Grace." The promises of the covenant become the pleading ground at the throne of grace, that the Lord would do a saving work in the hearts of our children. This is what Dr. Murray is aiming at so far as I can tell.
Pastor Lewis, I think that we are in agreement that Dr. Murray had good intentions and a good point in the fact that we, as Paedobaptists need to make sure that we are not presuming that our children are already saved and therefore neglecting to teach them the gospel. I just think that, "I’d rather err with the Baptists" was maybe not the best way to get that point across. The label Baptist is so broad. I think that the Baptists he describes might be Reformed Baptists, because in the dispensational, arminian Baptist churches that I've been in over the years it's been my experience that they don't go out of their way to teach the children the doctrines of grace.
I am in a denomination in which there are both credo and paedo baptists. I would say that the credo baptists in our church do a great job of teaching their children, as do the paedo baptists. Maybe this(presumptive parenting) is more of a problem in other Paedobaptist demoninations that I am just not familiar with. I'm not overly familiar with Dr. Murray's teachings, except that I know our elders have been very blessed with his preaching, but I do look forward to hearing him speak next summer when he comes to Indy for the Reforming Families Conference that our church is hosting.
Thank you for your recommendation of Rutherford's book, it sounds intriguing.
No parent is perfect, but if they were, there would still be nothing parents could do to put grace in the hearts of their offspring. Now, if that is the case, what is the point of suggesting that some parents are better at raising their children with respect to regeneration and saving faith?
Or He might permit them to wander away for a time with the intention of calling them to Himself later in life.
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.(Heb 4:15-16)
This might be surprising to some, but there is nothing in the raising of a child which naturally tends to make the child a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. There is absolutely nothing at all. Think on the parents' teaching, example, humility, patience, discipline, self-sacrifice, or diligence. These things separately or collectively have no power to make the slightest spiritual impression on a child. No parent is perfect, but if they were, there would still be nothing parents could do to put grace in the hearts of their offspring. Now, if that is the case, what is the point of suggesting that some parents are better at raising their children with respect to regeneration and saving faith?
We need to humble ourselves before God and ascribe unto Him the glory that is due to His name. Let us remember that the Lord is God, the Creator of our children, the covenant maker and covenant keeper who has placed them in our care for but a short time, the Sovereign Saviour of sinners who works all things after the counsel of His own will. As much as we are to love our children, we are still only to love them as ourselves; but we are to love God with all our being, and we are to resign ourselves to the purpose of God come what may. It might be His purpose to save our children, but let us remember that we have only done our duty and are unprofitable servants; all is to the praise of His glorious grace. Or He might permit them to wander away for a time with the intention of calling them to Himself later in life. But God might also leave our children in their sins, like Esau, and intends on making them an object by which to display His glorious justice; and He might purpose to break our hearts, and shake our false confidence in order to lead us to trust in Him alone, and humble us so as to mortify the pride of life, and many other holy and wholesome rebukes and chastisements; and He might make use of impenitent and unbelieving children to do it. We certainly cannot say we deserved better. All we can say, and all we should say, is, It is the Lord: let Him do what seemeth Him good, as painful as the situation might be.
How would this teaching be applied by those who find "presumptive parenting" to be in error, in the event of the death of a small child in your respective congregations?
If, say, a kindergartner in your congregation died, what would you say to the parents? Would you preach the funeral as though he were in heaven? Or more than likely? Or just as possibly as any other child? I don't ask this sarcastically; I sincerely want to know.
Well said. What I was trying to drive at was avoiding the idea that we need to err in one direction because one approach is more effective than another.I have a high regard for David Murray. Among other things, he combines a conservative reformed theology with excellent communication skills and zeal for the glory of God. But I have a genuine concern for the office of the ministry, and I question the wisdom of ministers blogging so casually the thoughts that occur to them from time to time. Our commission is, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded us. A minister should deliberately shun giving his private thoughts and feelings on things. If he desires his words to be received in the name of Christ then he must purpose to speak as the oracles of God.
This blog post is quite badly presented. Why do I say that? Well, quite simply, we do not "err" at all when we stress the need for personal regeneration and faith in the Saviour. These are matters of first importance in the creed of evangelicals. We are glad to see our "Baptist" friends agreeing with us in these things. It would be a matter of concern if they did not. But the reality is, the point on which we agree with our "Baptist" friends is no error at all.
The disagreement emerges when we begin to look at the doctrines of regeneration and faith just a little deeper. When an individual searches into these important teachings he discovers that there are some differences of secondary importance among evangelicals. One of these secondary differences pertains to the nature of infant salvation, and the means by which this salvation is applied to them. This disagreement is so great that it led our "Baptist" friends to separate from the reformed churches and to maintain a divided existence in order to live out their own unique convictions on this matter. In other words, the issues that divide us are matters of principle. They assert, maintain, and defend a teaching which is altogether different from the teaching which paedobaptists assert, maintain, and defend.
Now, given that our differences are a matter of principle, it is quite confusing to see a blog post evaluating the differences without any reference to the principles which are at stake. If principle is not the governing standard for evaluating the quality of nurture which children are receiving, what is?
This might be surprising to some, but there is nothing in the raising of a child which naturally tends to make the child a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. There is absolutely nothing at all. Think on the parents' teaching, example, humility, patience, discipline, self-sacrifice, or diligence. These things separately or collectively have no power to make the slightest spiritual impression on a child. No parent is perfect, but if they were, there would still be nothing parents could do to put grace in the hearts of their offspring. Now, if that is the case, what is the point of suggesting that some parents are better at raising their children with respect to regeneration and saving faith?
We need to humble ourselves before God and ascribe unto Him the glory that is due to His name. Let us remember that the Lord is God, the Creator of our children, the covenant maker and covenant keeper who has placed them in our care for but a short time, the Sovereign Saviour of sinners who works all things after the counsel of His own will. As much as we are to love our children, we are still only to love them as ourselves; but we are to love God with all our being, and we are to resign ourselves to the purpose of God come what may. It might be His purpose to save our children, but let us remember that we have only done our duty and are unprofitable servants; all is to the praise of His glorious grace. Or He might permit them to wander away for a time with the intention of calling them to Himself later in life. But God might also leave our children in their sins, like Esau, and intends on making them an object by which to display His glorious justice; and He might purpose to break our hearts, and shake our false confidence in order to lead us to trust in Him alone, and humble us so as to mortify the pride of life, and many other holy and wholesome rebukes and chastisements; and He might make use of impenitent and unbelieving children to do it. We certainly cannot say we deserved better. All we can say, and all we should say, is, It is the Lord: let Him do what seemeth Him good, as painful as the situation might be.
I would suggest that you need to think about what you just wrote. The Lord uses means but the means do not determine the eternal counsel of God.No parent is perfect, but if they were, there would still be nothing parents could do to put grace in the hearts of their offspring. Now, if that is the case, what is the point of suggesting that some parents are better at raising their children with respect to regeneration and saving faith?
I don't entirely understand.
We cannot turn the faucet of grace upon our children, but we are certainly to hold them underneath that faucet as much as we can by prayer and bible instruction in the hopes that the Lord will turn on the spigot.