If children of believers are part of God's covenant, why do some come to reject Christianity?

[Haeralis]

I'm very new to the issues at stake in the Baptism debate. Theologically, I have more knowledge of issues such as soteriology. Based off of what I know about the two different positions, I definitely agree more with the confessional Presbyterian position. I myself was baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church.

I'm generally in the minority when I discuss this issue with fellow believers, and I am wondering what the best response is when they inevitably ask "well, if children of believers are automatically a part of the covenant by virtue of their parentage, then why do so many of them later leave the faith?" Though it is easy to respond by telling them that the same thing can happen to Baptists (when someone professes belief, is baptized, and later leaves the faith because they were never sincere), I am wondering what the best logical defense of the Presbyterian position is here. If the children of believers are included in the promise of God, then wouldn't this mean that they would all come to faith? Wouldn't inclusion in a promise / covenant mean that the external sign of Baptism would serve to seal the child's faith to come?

 

[greenbaggins]

Baptism marks inclusion in the visible church, not the invisible. Similarly the promise of baptism is not that our children will all be saved, but that if they come to faith they will be saved. The promise also includes advantages that they have that the children of unbelievers do not have. They grow up under the means of grace. If they leave the faith, that does not mean that God's promise failed. Either the child rebelled, and/or the parents did not do proper diligence in teaching the children the things of the faith. Not all Israel are of Israel. Generally speaking, God works covenantally. But this is not a promise that all covenantal children will be saved. I would go to the visible/invisible church distinction first.

 

[Haeralis]

Baptism marks inclusion in the visible church, not the invisible. Similarly the promise of baptism is not that our children will all be saved, but that if they come to faith they will be saved. The promise also includes advantages that they have that the children of unbelievers do not have. They grow up under the means of grace. If they leave the faith, that does not mean that God's promise failed. Either the child rebelled, and/or the parents did not do proper diligence in teaching the children the things of the faith. Not all Israel are of Israel. Generally speaking, God works covenantally. But this is not a promise that all covenantal children will be saved. I would go to the visible/invisible church distinction first.

Very clear and helpful response! Thank you.

 

[OPC'n]

unbelievers or believers?

 

[greenbaggins]

unbelievers or believers?

If you are referring to the title of the OP, I am pretty sure he means "believers."

 

[Haeralis]

unbelievers or believers?

Not sure how I overlooked such a significant error! I am sorry for the confusion. I did mean "children of believers" and not "unbelievers." Hopefully a mod can change the title accordingly.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Not sure how I overlooked such a significant error! I am sorry for the confusion. I did mean "children of believers" and not "unbelievers." Hopefully a mod can change the title accordingly.

Done.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You must understand that only the elect are properly speaking in the covenant of grace (Westminster Larger Catechism 31). The non-elect among the children of believers only belong to the external administration of the covenant of grace; they are not in the covenant proper. Only the elect among our children are "children of the promise", those that don't keep the covenant (in the sense of WLC 32) are Esaus, not Jacobs. The promise is that all the elect among our seed will be saved, not every child belonging to the external administration of the covenant.

 

[Poimen]

Election and reprobation runs through covenant lines as God said he would put enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), Isaac & Ishmael and Jacob & Esau being notable examples, among others.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Either the child rebelled, and/or the parents did not do proper diligence in teaching the children the things of the faith. Not all Israel are of Israel.

Lane, could you clarify what you mean here?

Certainly a child who rebels to the end, while justly condemned for his/her sinfulness, also attests to the sovereignty of God in election. Even in a covenantal framework, the parents aren't responsible for the final destiny of the child. In other words, Christian parents can, in fact, "do proper diligence in teaching the children the things of the faith," and still have them depart if they are non-elect, for, as you go on to say, "Not all Israel are of Israel." [Likewise, and conversely, Christian parents who do a terrible job may still see their children profess saving faith, as it is the purpose of His will that prevails!]

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Christian parents who do a terrible job may still see their children profess saving faith, as it is the purpose of His will that prevails!]

I was baptized as a Presbyterian as an infant, then raised with no religious instructions or regard for truth and good morality, and here I am, saved, and in the Presbyterian Church - all by the Lord's work. Your comment is true!

 

[Von]

the promise of baptism is not that our children will all be saved, but that if they come to faith they will be saved

Would you be so kind as to clarify your statement, especially as it relates to the bold part?

 

[Polanus1561]

Baptism marks inclusion in the visible church, not the invisible. Similarly the promise of baptism is not that our children will all be saved, but that if they come to faith they will be saved. The promise also includes advantages that they have that the children of unbelievers do not have. They grow up under the means of grace. If they leave the faith, that does not mean that God's promise failed. Either the child rebelled, and/or the parents did not do proper diligence in teaching the children the things of the faith. Not all Israel are of Israel. Generally speaking, God works covenantally. But this is not a promise that all covenantal children will be saved. I would go to the visible/invisible church distinction first.

May I posit a question I wish never to hear, what if someone asks "Is this promise not given to all who hear the Gospel? What benefits then is it to a child of the covenant?"

 

[Contra_Mundum]

May I posit a question I wish never to hear, what if someone asks "Is this promise not given to all who hear the Gospel? What benefits then is it to a child of the covenant?"

Because we confess baptism is a "means of grace," for the elect, and they will derive some spiritual benefit at some moment (whenever the Spirit wills). It is a means, just as much as the Word, and used by God in his way and for his purpose. Even if such use is a bit mysterious, not entirely obvious.

Was there benefit to being circumcised and in the covenant of old? "Yes, much in every way..." Rom.3:2.

 

[Von]

Because we confess baptism is a "means of grace," for the elect

But the very reason for being elect is in question here, if I understand John's "question he never wants to hear" correctly. The coming to faith and subsequent salvation has nothing to do with baptism. I could make a case for preaching as a means of grace to salvation or praying as a means of grace to salvation, but not baptism.
Now let me be fair, I am a Baptist, so my view might be considered as biased, but I am willing to listen to good arguments.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The coming to faith and subsequent salvation has nothing to do with baptism.

Are you sure? How do you know that? That is your Baptist perspective.

But we're also not claiming that baptism "works" the way Romanists say it does. Still, many Baptists can only think of contrary perspectives as if they were all the binary opposite.

 

[Ben Zartman]

May I posit a question I wish never to hear, what if someone asks "Is this promise not given to all who hear the Gospel? What benefits then is it to a child of the covenant?"

In Baptist belief, the promise of salvation in Christ is given to everyone who believes the Gospel. "You, your children, and all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord shall call" is the scope of the promise. Salvation was available to the immediate crowd, to subsequent generations, and to strangers all the world over--qualified by God's sovereignty: as many as He is pleased to call.
He is not pleased to call to Him all children of every believer--we have seen that.
So (and with apologies if I have unintentionally derailed the thread), for Baptists at least this question doesn't come up.
I think one of the sources of confusion is that some Presbyterians take "covenant" to mean "family", and accuse Baptists of misunderstanding what a covenant is because we don't automatically include family within the scope of covenant. When they say "Of course we include family because God speaks covenantally," we are left scratching our heads. The one does not necessarily mean the other. The LORD made a covenant with every living thing after the Flood, but that doesn't mean that animals are my family (although sometimes my daughters are animals ). But again, if this is not in the scope of this discussion, I apologize and will delete upon moderator or OP request.

 

[Von]

The topic is "If children of believers are part of God's covenant, why do some come to reject Christianity?"
I think I need some clarity from my presbyterian brothers:
1) Do you get to be part of the covenant through baptism?
2) Is it only through baptism?
Furthermore, thank you Ben for giving some direction in your post. I think in that instance, I would call to mind Psalm 50:16 But to the wicked God says: "What right have you to recite my statutes or take my covenant on your lips?"
Even though they were part of the covenant, and gained benefits, they show through their character that they are wicked. So here I would agree with Rev Buchanan's post #14.

 

[greenbaggins]

Lane, could you clarify what you mean here?

Certainly a child who rebels to the end, while justly condemned for his/her sinfulness, also attests to the sovereignty of God in election. Even in a covenantal framework, the parents aren't responsible for the final destiny of the child. In other words, Christian parents can, in fact, "do proper diligence in teaching the children the things of the faith," and still have them depart if they are non-elect, for, as you go on to say, "Not all Israel are of Israel." [Likewise, and conversely, Christian parents who do a terrible job may still see their children profess saving faith, as it is the purpose of His will that prevails!]

It is, of course, true that proper parental instruction is no guarantee of children's following in the faith, nor is spiritual parental neglect a guarantee that children will fall away. However, parental spiritual neglect is happening on a massive scale today and is a factor in children falling away in many, many cases. Parents give the training of their children over to the church, thinking that therefore (since the church is doing it), therefore they don't need to do much of anything by way of family worship. This winds up being one hour (or maybe two) on a Sunday morning of good stuff (if the family is fortunate) versus hours upon hours upon hours of indoctrination by the schools and by television in secular humanism, evolution, and other faith-destroying lies. Parents are naive if they think that they don't need to instruct, catechize, and counteract the secular humanism that their children are getting in the schools and other places.

 

[Dachaser]

But the very reason for being elect is in question here, if I understand John's "question he never wants to hear" correctly. The coming to faith and subsequent salvation has nothing to do with baptism. I could make a case for preaching as a means of grace to salvation or praying as a means of grace to salvation, but not baptism.
Now let me be fair, I am a Baptist, so my view might be considered as biased, but I am willing to listen to good arguments.

Both sides in this discussion would see that the Promise in a spiritual sense would apply/benefit only to the Elect of the Lord, so all children who have not professed and gave forth fruit to show that faith is a valid one, wouldn't all of the children raised in a church setting would be under same benefit, regardless whether Baptist or Presbyterian?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Both sides in this discussion would see that the Promise in a spiritual sense would apply/benefit only to the Elect of the Lord, so all children who have not professed and gave forth fruit to show that faith is a valid one, wouldn't all of the children raised in a church setting would be under same benefit, regardless whether Baptist or Presbyterian?

I believe I agree.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Baptism wouldn't place us in covenant with God, God's promise to the children of His people would place us in covenant with Him. Now blessings for obedience is another factor that must come in.

 

[Dachaser]

Baptism wouldn't place us in covenant with God, God's promise to the children of His people would place us in covenant with Him. Now blessings for obedience is another factor that must come in.

Faith in Jesus as our messiah/Lord bring us into a Covenant relationship with God.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The covenant does not guarantee that all of our children will be or are, elect. This may have already been addressed but the covenant has two heads: One, the internal side: the elect and two: the external side. Both are important in God's decree. The covenant cannot be seen apart from this distinction. The external side is as important as the internal. Those in the external aspect are there to continue their defiance and rebellion to God's command and are rightfully, building up their 'cups of condemnation'. Hence, the covenant is successful in both ways in God's decree by sealing the elect and by sealing the reprobate.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Faith in Jesus as our messiah/Lord bring us into a Covenant relationship with God.

Ah, brother David, and that's why you are a Baptist and I'm a Presbyterian . Thankfully we are still one in Christ!

 

[ccravens]

Because we confess baptism is a "means of grace," for the elect, and they will derive some spiritual benefit at some moment (whenever the Spirit wills). It is a means, just as much as the Word, and used by God in his way and for his purpose. Even if such use is a bit mysterious, not entirely obvious.

This statement brings up many questions for me.

One, is this a common/standard reformed, Presbyterian position?

Two, in what exact way is baptism a "means of grace?"

Three, deriving "some" spiritual benefit from baptism at "some" moment sounds vague to me; could you clarify?

Four, how is baptism used by God as a means, "as much as" the word?

Finally, if the use is "mysterious" and not entirely "obvious" then is it mystical in some sense? Again, sounds very vague.

Wanting to understand, not start an argument. Thanks!

 

[Dachaser]

The covenant does not guarantee that all of our children will be or are, elect. This may have already been addressed but the covenant has two heads: One, the internal side: the elect and two: the external side. Both are important in God's decree. The covenant cannot be seen apart from this distinction. The external side is as important as the internal. Those in the external aspect are there to continue their defiance and rebellion to God's command and are rightfully, building up their 'cups of condemnation'. Hence, the covenant is successful in both ways in God's decree by sealing the elect and by sealing the reprobate.

Would what you are saying here be the equivalent of how Baptists see the visible/invisible Church?

 

[Dachaser]

Ah, brother David, and that's why you are a Baptist and I'm a Presbyterian . Thankfully we are still one in Christ!

The truth is that in Heaven, the only label that matters is Christian...

 

[Dachaser]

[you]This statement brings up many questions for me.[/you]

One, is this a common/standard reformed, Presbyterian position?

Two, in what exact way is baptism a "means of grace?"

Three, deriving "some" spiritual benefit from baptism at "some" moment sounds vague to me; could you clarify?

Four, how is baptism used by God as a means, "as much as" the word?

Finally, if the use is "mysterious" and not entirely "obvious" then is it mystical in some sense? Again, sounds very vague.

Wanting to understand, not start an argument. Thanks!

good questions, for if it is a means of grace into the Covenant with God, then what is the faith In Jesus to be saved basis for a covenant relationship then?
And would not the true Baptism not be in the water, but by the Holy spirit at conversion into the Body of Christ, by now union with/in Christ?

 

[Ben Zartman]

good questions, for if it is a means of grace into the Covenant with God, then what is the faith In Jesus to be saved basis for a covenant relationship then?
And would not the true Baptism not be in the water, but by the Holy spirit at conversion into the Body of Christ, by now union with/in Christ?

David, the term "means of grace" is not usually taken to mean "the way in which people are saved". It is used for all the things that are used of God to impart grace to His children. When I go to church and hear the Word preached, I am partaking of the means of grace: God has promised to nurture me and edify me by the preaching of His word.
Baptism is a means of grace (in Baptist thought), in that the baptism is a visible "preaching" of the Gospel, just like the Lord's Supper is. We see a sinner who, despairing of self, has fled to Christ for cleansing from sin. When we see a new believer baptized, we meditate on God's goodness in calling sinners to Himself; on the free offer of salvation in Christ; on newness of life; on endless other blessings and graces that come to us in Christ Jesus, and it is a means to grace. To the believing soul, grace is given in the reminder of all that is his; to the sinner, in that eternal life is offered if he will wash in the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness.