Infant baptism and crisis conversions

[AdamM]

If the children are holy then they are presumed to be with Christ.

I think you are confusing the difference between federally holy and individually holy. Federally holy as our standards affirm makes no claim at all to presumption or knowledge that the individual is regenerated, but federally holy instead refers to being set apart, a member of the visible church (covenant community,) in the historical administration of the covenant of grace. Our standards clearly state in WCF 28-6 that that grace is conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God´s own will, in His appointed time. There is no presumption in that statement that the Holy Spirit will confer grace upon all those who are baptized or even for arguments sake the majority of those who are baptized and are members of the visible church. The Holy Sprit confers grace to those to whom it belongs to, when He wants, according to the will of God (unconditional election.)

The revivalistic views that have dominated American presbyterianism for a long time create a third category. The use of infant baptism by those with revivalistic views (those who view their children as essentially pagans with a baptism that does not really seal (authenticate) their status before God) really have a third category.

I think the views on covenant and election that I explained are those of our standards and historic Presbyterianism. If Reformed churchmen of the past such as Thomas Watson, William Guthrie and today a TE today like Sinclair Ferguson get tagged as revivalists by the sacramentalists, then we know the charge is way off base. I and these men are saying nothing more then that our covenant children have a covenantal obligation to seek the Lord, to close with Christ in repentance and personal faith. Since in Adam ALL sinned and being a member of the covenant in terms of its historical administration is no assurance of election, then our children have the obligation to close with Christ by repentance and personal faith or they will go to hell. The only way presumed regeneration makes sense is if somehow being in the administration of the covenant guaranteed the election of all who are in it, but the scriptures and our own experiences show plenty of examples to the contrary.

This in no way removes the great advantages our children have has members of the covenant. Their baptism itself functions as a powerful call to faith and God certainly delights to work through families. Our children are set apart in the covenant community, live in homes where the ordinary means God (faith comes by hearing) uses to bring people to faith should be saturating their lives. They have fathers, mothers and elders seeking for their salvation. How this can be called putting our children in the same position as pagans is a mystery to me? The alternative being proposed amounts to a confusing of the sign with the thing signified and an opus operatum view of baptism, where the sacrament is given efficacy apart from personal faith.

Thomas Watson:

"Get a real work of grace in your heart. 'It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace.´ Heb 13: 9. Nothing will hold out but grace; it is only this anointing abides; paint will fall off. Get a heartchanging work. 'But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified.' I Cor 6: 2: Be not content with baptism of water, without baptism of the Spirit. The reason men persevere not in religion, is for want of a vital principle; a branch must needs wither that has no root to grow upon."

William Guthrie:

"Believing on Christ must be personal; a man himself and in his own proper person must close with Christ Jesus-"˜The just shall live by his faith.´ (Hab. 2:4.) This says, that it will not suffice for a man´s safety and relief, that he is in covenant with God as a born member of the visible church, by virtue of the parent´s subjection to God´s ordinances: neither will it suffice that the person had the initiating seal of baptism added, and that he then virtually engaged to seek salvation by Christ´s blood, as all infants do: neither does it suffice that men are come of believing parents; their faith will not instate their children into a right to the spiritual blessings of the covenant; neither will it suffice that parents did, in some respects, engage for their children, and give them away unto God: all these things do not avail. The children of the kingdom and of godly predecessors are cast out. Unless a man in his own person have faith in Christ Jesus, and with his own heart approve and acquiesce in that device of saving sinners, he cannot be saved. I grant, this faith is given unto him by Christ; but certain it is, that it must be personal."

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by AdamM]

 

[fredtgreco]

Thank you Adam. An excellent post. I especially agree that the citation of Watson and Guthrie shows the foolishness (and anachronism) of the charge of "revivalism." After all, Watson and Guthrie wrote centuries BEFORE the First Great Awakening (let alone the second)

 

[Scott]

"How this can be called putting our children in the same position as pagans is a mystery to me?"

Adam: All you are really saying is that children of believers have more and better opportunities to be evangelized. Being a member of God's covenant involves much more than this.

Also, it does not surprise me that Ferguson and many others teach a revivalistic view. That view has dominated American reformed history. You might check out D.G. Hart's essay on this topic in his Recovering Mother Kirk. Hart is OPC and a Westminster Seminary Prof.

The prevalence of this view also explains, I think, why reformed denominations are virtually indistiguishable from credo-baptist evangelical denominations regarding how we treat children. Your view and that of the typical baptist are identical in all material points and you both treat your children as pagans who need to be saved. My experience in the PCA is that, at least in my region, PCA members tend to have little or no problem moving between the PCA and non-reformed churches b/c the views are basically the same. I think it should strike us as odd that for all of the talk regarding the importance of covenant children, there are no material practical differences between a credo baptist and the majority paedo baptist view.

 

[Scott]

Fred: I admit that I am using the term "revivalist" loosely. I definitely agree that the fundamental views existed prior to the First Great Awakening. Early American Puritans (congregationalists) held to the view I am criticizing. It led to madness like the Half-Way Covenant.

Also, when I use "revivalist" I am not referring to the manipulative techniques used by them, but to their views that covenant children should be viewed as children of hell until they make their decision.

Adam and Fred: If, in spite of their baptism, you presume children to be unbelievers until some event, why don't you excommunicate them until that event happens?

 

[AdamM]

Thanks Fred,

I could have thrown out some more examples, but Guthrie and Watson are as mainstream as you get for that time period (For what it's worth, I borrowed these quotes from an great online paper done by Pastor Andy Webb.) I guess they are revivlists too? I just wish everyone here could listen to the lecture given by Dr. Sinclair Ferguson on Baptism and the Westminster Standards at the conference held before GA this year. In the lecture, Dr. Ferguson carefully goes through the standards teachings on baptism, explaining the background and the approach of the major players (Marshall, Lightfoot & etc.) I find his exegesis of the standards totally convincing and in agreement with my own previous readings of the Puritans of that era (on both sides of the Atlantic.)

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by AdamM]

 

[Scott]

On a happy note , we should be able to confirm that we do agree on something important, namely that there is no need for a "crisis" - faith can come imperceptibly. I think this helps avoid a major revivalistic problem that led to strange issues, such as the Half-Way Covenant. It would not surprise me if some modern reformed got caught in that same trap, as their views can be so similar. Here is a interesting excerpt from an essay on the Half-Way Covenant that describes what is essentially a revivalistic experience:

Puritans had made the arduous journey to the New World in order to establish a pure community of like-minded Christians, a "City on a Hill." Although all members of a Puritan community were expected to attend church, membership carried with it the right to vote in church matters and to take communion, and it was considered a strong indication that one would receive eternal salvation. Individuals demonstrated their worthiness for membership by testifying before the congregation that God had "sanctified" them, describing a conversion experience, or moment of revelation, that the congregation then evaluated. At the start, most Puritans had had such experiences. But as time passed, fewer and fewer of the subsequent generation of settlers could qualify for church membership.

I have seen PCA churches take a similar approach. I think that those posting on the list at least agree that this is not necessary. Our discussion has expanded beyond this initial point into the material importance of including children in the covenant.

Scott

 

[Scott]

Adam: Regarding Ferguson's presentation of the history of this view, I woulc recommend reading D.G. Hart's works on the same topic. Hart is actually a historian as well as theologian. As I recall, Ferguson is not a historian. Oh yeah, it sounds like Shenck's work is good too, although I have not read it yet.

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Scott]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott
On a happy note , we should be able to confirm that we do agree on something important, namely that there is no need for a "crisis" - faith can come imperceptibly. I think this helps avoid a major revivalistic problem that led to strange issues, such as the Half-Way Covenant. It would not surprise me if some modern reformed got caught in that same trap, as their views can be so similar. Here is a interesting excerpt from an essay on the Half-Way Covenant that describes what is essentially a revivalistic experience:

Puritans had made the arduous journey to the New World in order to establish a pure community of like-minded Christians, a "City on a Hill." Although all members of a Puritan community were expected to attend church, membership carried with it the right to vote in church matters and to take communion, and it was considered a strong indication that one would receive eternal salvation. Individuals demonstrated their worthiness for membership by testifying before the congregation that God had "sanctified" them, describing a conversion experience, or moment of revelation, that the congregation then evaluated. At the start, most Puritans had had such experiences. But as time passed, fewer and fewer of the subsequent generation of settlers could qualify for church membership.

I have seen PCA churches take a similar approach. I think that those posting on the list at least agree that this is not necessary. Our discussion has expanded beyond this initial point into the material importance of including children in the covenant.

Scott

Scott,

Where did you get that quote from?

The irony is that it does not describe "revivalistic" PCA churches or any other such animal. It describes those who espouse Baptismal Presumption and a low view of conversion. Notice that the members of the Half-Way covenant can vote (like a full communing member - no PCA church would allow that, much less one that required a "crisis" conversion). Notice also that these Half-Wayers are taking communion.

Now where have I seen someone argue against letting children of the Covenant take communion without a profession of faith? Oh yeah, that's right... it was me.

This is NOT revivalism. It is the logical consequence of Schenck's un-Calvinistic theology. Remember what Calvin's practice was -- although no one has even bothered to address it, let alone answer me -- Calvin required SIGNIFICANT profession and answers to catechism questions before admitting to the table.

 

[Scott]

Fred: We may be miscommunicating. You are not actually defending the situation prior to the Half-Way Covenant, are you? As I understand from your earlier post, you agree that faith can come imperceptibly and you do not require the intense emotional experience and testimony about a "moment of revelation" required the early Puritans. You don't require people to identify the "moment of revelation" do you? That would be inconsistent with the idea of impercetible acquisition of faith.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott
Fred: We may be miscommunicating. You are not actually defending the situation prior to the Half-Way Covenant, are you? As I understand from your earlier post, you agree that faith can come imperceptibly and you do not require the intense emotional experience and testimony about a "moment of revelation" required the early Puritans. You don't require people to identify the "moment of revelation" do you? That would be inconsistent with the idea of impercetible acquisition of faith.

No. I am saying that it is a wrong theological and historical assessment to say:

Revivalistic view of covenant --> halfway covenant --> people communing without a genuine conversion

What actually happens is:

exaggerated view of baptism --> halfway covenant --> non-converted, non-professors partaking

It is the views of Schlissel, Schenck and others that leads to the Half-way covenant, not the other way around. Remember that the Half-way covenant came about because of the "special status" conferred by baptism.

And to answer an obvious question from your earlier post:

Adam and Fred: If, in spite of their baptism, you presume children to be unbelievers until some event, why don't you excommunicate them until that event happens?

unless you are outside the entire Western Church tradition and espouse paedocommunion (which you have said you don't, so I am making a point), you can't excommunicate persons who have never communed. That is the whole point of excommunication. It is not simply "being thrown out of the Church." It is being denied the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. So your question is like asking, if you are against murder, why not shoot trees?

 

[Ianterrell]

Fred.

Actually paedocommunion was practiced in the Western tradition far longer than anti-paedocommunion I think. And no I'm not a Paedocommie.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Ianterrell
And no I'm not a Paedocommie.

Creative!

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Ianterrell
Fred.

Actually paedocommunion was practiced in the Western tradition far longer than anti-paedocommunion I think. And no I'm not a Paedocommie.

You'd be wrong. You might have heard that from Tommy Lee, but you'd be wrong.

 

[Scott]

Fred: I disagree with your historical assessment. The Half-Way Covenant came precisely out of the revivalistic view.

I would also be curious to know how you understand the proper enforcement of church censures against a child of covenant. It sounds like you are equating excommunication with simple suspension from the Lord's Supper. They are related but different. Excomunnication involves more; it involves casting the unbeliever out of fellowship.

Anyway, since you presume that children of the covenant are unbelievers, at what point should the Church start enforcing penalties against them, such as completely casting them out of fellowship?

 

[Scott]

I have a question for Fred and Adam. Are there any preconditions for teaching toddlers and other children to pray in the name of Jesus?

 

[Scott]

Adam: I have a couple of other questions regarding this:

This in no way removes the great advantages our children have has members of the covenant. Their baptism itself functions as a powerful call to faith and God certainly delights to work through families. Our children are set apart in the covenant community, live in homes where the ordinary means God (faith comes by hearing) uses to bring people to faith should be saturating their lives. They have fathers, mothers and elders seeking for their salvation. How this can be called putting our children in the same position as pagans is a mystery to me?

[1] Where does reformed theology teach that baptism is a call to salvation? It sounds like you see baptism as an evangelistic tool, as opposed to a seal (athenitication) of faith.

[2] How does your view of children differ from that of any non-convenantal view?

Scott

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott
Fred: We may be miscommunicating. You are not actually defending the situation prior to the Half-Way Covenant, are you? As I understand from your earlier post, you agree that faith can come imperceptibly and you do not require the intense emotional experience and testimony about a "moment of revelation" required the early Puritans. You don't require people to identify the "moment of revelation" do you? That would be inconsistent with the idea of impercetible acquisition of faith.

No. I am saying that it is a wrong theological and historical assessment to say:

Revivalistic view of covenant --> halfway covenant --> people communing without a genuine conversion

What actually happens is:

exaggerated view of baptism --> halfway covenant --> non-converted, non-professors partaking

It is the views of Schlissel, Schenck and others that leads to the Half-way covenant, not the other way around. Remember that the Half-way covenant came about because of the "special status" conferred by baptism.

Actually I think you're both right. Solomon Stoddard taught that the Lord's Supper could be used as a converting ordinance for those who had not yet professed faith but were still baptized as children. THey had an over-emphasis on baptism, and maybe, an over emphasis on the need for a specific converting experience. But that was Solomon Stoddard. There were several New England puritans who opposed the half-way covenant, Edward Taylor being one of the most notable.

Either way, the tradition that we are to require fruit with our profession goes back far further than revivalism to Calvin himself. I'm still waiting for the PR's to respond to that point.

No one here is arguing for a crisis conversion, and I've never been to a reformed church that requires one for admittance to communion. I've sat in with the session during an interview (ouside my own) and all they look for is evidence of faith in Christ, not a crisis. I did not have a crisis conversion and I told that to both of the sessions of the churches I've been members of and it was not an obstacle to either session. So I think the charges of revivalism are completely overblown. There may be some influences here and there but it's not the reformed mainstream. So lets drop the strawmen please.

 

[AdamM]

Scott, I hope to have time to get to some of your questions later today, but in the meantime I have cut and pasted some relevant excerpts from a great article written by Matthew and Scott´s pastor below that deals with these issues. Rev. Phillips has an approach (Experimental Calvinism / see - Banner of Truth) to these issues that I share and I know he is able to express it in a much better then I am capable of doing.

http://www.gpts.edu/resources/resource_covconfusion.html

KEY FEATURES OF THE NEW APPROACH TO COVENANT
This new definition of covenant, grounded in unsound Trinitarian speculation, serves to advance three features notable in the current debate. The first is the supplanting of traditional soteriology with a re-charged ecclesiology. Indeed, this seems to be one of the main motives for this new theology of covenant. The argument goes like this (here I am following Peter Leithart): none of us exist on our own, so being is being-in-relationship; I only am what I am with respect to the community in which I relate to others. For instance, I am named Phillips not because of something essential about me, but because of my relationship with other people named Phillips. Thus what makes me a Christian is being in the church. Leithart writes, "Entry into the church is always a soteriological fact for the person who enters... If the church is the 'house of God' (WCF 25.2), then membership in the church makes the person a member of that household." 17 Note the word makes. Membership in the church is not correlative with becoming a child of God; it makes a person a child of God.

This is what I mean by the supplanting of soteriology with ecclesiology. Instead of realizing that our relationship with God is primary, so that salvation is primarily a spiritual reality in which our relationship one with another in the church is derivative from our relationship with God, this revamped covenant theology puts it precisely backward. Under this view, our relationship with the church is primary, so that salvation is primarily a social and cultural reality, and our relationship with God is derivative from our relationship in the church.

A second and related feature of this approach is its emphasis on the external and the objective over the internal and subjective. This is touted as its main attraction. Douglas Wilson boasts of "recovering the objectivity of the covenant," the subtitle of his book Reformed Is Not Enough. This means I can know objectively I am right with God because I am in the church. He exults, "Covenants of God have a physical aspect, like an oak tree." 18 Presumably, the point is that we can physically climb into it.

This is supposed to deliver us from the so-called plague of "morbid introspection" - that is, from ascertaining the presence of a real and personal faith that brings me into relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I am freed from all this simply by noting that I am physically in the church and therefore in covenant with God. This emphasis would not be so dangerous if its proponents, such as the Auburn Avenue theologians, allowed for the distinction between the visible and the invisible church that is so essential to the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards. But since they insist that there is no other church than the one that is visible and physical, their emphasis on ecclesiology over soteriology and the external over the internal is all the more alarming.

Both of these first two features come together in the great importance assigned to baptism, which in this system exerts a controlling influence over the assurance of salvation. Since they believe that we enter into a saving relationship with God through entry into the church (rather than vice versa), then since baptism is the rite of entry into the church it is also the route of entry into all of salvation's blessings. Instead of serving as a visible sign and seal of the covenant promise, baptism becomes the way the promise is made real to the recipient. As an example, Rich Lusk writes, "Baptism is the means through which the Spirit unites us to Christ. No other means is said to have this function; it is the peculiar grace attached to baptism... Since baptism is the instrumental means of union with Christ, it is sometimes said to be the instrument of forgiveness and regeneration (Acts 2:38, 22:16; Tit. 3:5). These are the chief blessings of union with Christ; they are offered in baptism and received by faith. In other words, baptism is simply the gospel in aqueous form."

The problem with this is that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9) and, according to the Westminster Confession, baptismal grace does not create faith but strengthens existing faith (see WCF XIV.1). That is true even for infants who come to faith sometime after their baptisms. "The grace of faith," says the Confession, "is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened." Therefore, we must distinguish between the respective ministries of the Word and of the sacraments: the former both creates and strengthens saving faith, whereas the latter does not create saving faith but does strengthen it. The point is that salvation's blessings, such as forgiveness, come via faith, which faith is wrought by the Holy Spirit through the ministry of the Word. Baptism does not grant those blessings but confirms them, just as it does not create but strengthens faith.

What this means is that we should not look to the rite of baptism as the ground of our assurance, for the simple reasons that we may be baptized without believing and that if we believe it is because of God's Word and not because of baptism. Here, too, we have a confusion of the sign for the thing signified. Baptism is a sign of Christ's cleansing blood and the Spirit's cleansing renewal. We should look to the reality - to the thing signified - and not to the sign for our assurance. This is the error against which the New Testament constantly warns us - presuming salvation because of external association with the gospel. Michael Horton observes, "This is what Paul and the writer to the Hebrews especially labor to make plain to Jewish Christians: You who have received the sign beware lest you fall short of trusting in Christ and all his benefits (the thing signified)." 20 Just as Paul and the Book of Hebrews warn their Jewish readers against presuming salvation simply because they possessed circumcision (see Romans 9:6-8 and Hebrews 4:1-2), the last thing we need to tell Christian children is to rest assured on their possession of baptism, apart from a credible profession of faith in God's Word.

We may ask, "Why this fixation on baptism?" The answer we are given is that we need to ground our assurance of salvation on something objective and concrete rather than in "morbid introspection" of our inner spiritual state. Steve Wilkins argues that this "enables us to assure Christians of their acceptance with God without needlessly undermining their confidence in God's promises by forcing them to ask questions of themselves they cannot answer with certainty."21 He makes clear in a footnote that these needless inquiries have to do with the credibility of their profession of faith.

Another proponent argues that baptism is necessary to rescue us from "the quicksand of subjectivity: experiences of conversion, feelings of spirituality, good works, holy living, an internal sense of forgiveness, signs and traces of some immediate work of the Spirit in our souls, and so on." 22 The problem is that it is to these very things, rightly defined, that the Bible tells us to look for our assurance.

Instead of the biblically-defined marks of true and saving faith, followers of the Auburn Avenue theology are told to rely upon the fact that they were baptized, which allows them to presume their salvation until such time as they completely apostasy. But what this propounds is not an objective covenant but an externalism and formalism in religion in the place of the personal, inner spirituality of faith.
I have no doubt that this approach resonates with many people today who crave a community with substance, who want to see and touch and smell their Christianity. These are worthy ends, but this false covenant theology is the wrong means. I say this because the Bible actively discourages such an approach to one's relationship with God. Jeremiah, who spoke eloquently about taking the right turn at the crossroads, preached in the very next chapter his most potent sermon on just this theme. Jeremiah stood before not just any church but before Solomon's temple in Jerusalem. He urgently warned them against relying on any external affiliation with even that great temple apart from true and saving faith. He cried, "Do not trust in these deceptive words: 'This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord'" (Jer. 7:4).

God never tells us to believe that we are right with him simply because we are in the church. The community of the church is not the covenant; it is a product of the covenant. The covenant is not something we can climb into by walking up a certain set of stairs. Rather, it is the way of salvation by which God invites us into relationship with himself through Jesus Christ and only in consequence into relationship with one another.

A THEOLOGY OF COVENANT CHILDREN
When you ask those who are trying to rewrite covenant theology what concerns are driving them, as I have had the opportunity to do first-hand with some of them, you will inevitably hear them address the subject of covenant children. This is where many of us will most resonate with them, because of our shared concern for non-covenantal views of children that seemingly dominate today. For many evangelicals, until a child has had a dramatic conversion experience they are considered pagans within their own Christian homes. Some Christian children are taught not to say the Lord's prayer and not to call God "our Father." In many churches, children are not allowed in the worship service until they "come of age."

It is in response to this that many turn to covenant theology to take a vastly more positive view of children growing up in Christian homes and in the church. Douglas Wilson writes, "In a very real way, this debate is a debate over the theology of children. This is important because in the American church our theology of children is overwhelmingly baptistic, even in paedo-baptist communions." He cites the attitude of 19th century Southern Presbyterian theologian, Henry Thornwell, who said the Church must treat her children "precisely as she treats all other impenitent and unbelieving men - she is to exercise the power of the keys, and shut them out from the communion of the saints." 38
To this attitude, the response is made that children are members of God's covenant and are holy, that is, are saints, by virtue of their parents (1 Cor. 7:14). To this we should agree, although we need to be careful of the sense in which we mean this. Rightly, it means that children are part of the community of God's people and have been given God's Word. In their baptism they have God's mark of ownership placed upon them and are called to faith. The prayers of the church belong to them and they have the privilege of oversight from the church's shepherds. These things we must insist upon as the right of our children by birth. What we must not do, however, is presume regeneration or salvation. While the children of believers are blessed with great privileges, salvation itself is not by heredity; saving grace does not pass on, as some have suggested, through the sperm and ovum of parents.

When it comes to covenant succession, we should not presume regeneration in our children, but instead hold a trusting confidence in God combined with a prayerful attention to duty as Christian parents. Here, the emphasis varies. Douglas Wilson writes, "When we have faith that works its way out in love, which is the only thing that genuine faith can do, then the condition that God set for the fulfillment of His promises has been met. Can we fulfill our covenant responsibilities (by believing) and yet have God fail to fulfill His promises? It is not possible." 39 The problem with this is an automaticity that does not square with lived experience or with the whole biblical picture. Children can be raised in the church by faithful parents, yet they turn away from faith in Christ. Wilson considers this a disbelieving of God's promises on account of the testimony of men. In fact, his position is an example of standing on a few select and favored promises in such a way that fails to account for the whole counsel of God. Wilson's teaching wrongfully accuses already grieving parents of damning their children by being not faithful enough. This is just one place in which the new covenant theology turns biblical decretal theology on its head. Instead of God's election controlling the covenant, Wilson and others have the covenant controlling God's election. But, as Paul points out in Romans 9:10-12, "Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue," God said, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." It was not God's sovereign purpose either for Ishmael, the first son of Abraham, or Esau, the son of Isaac, to enter into eternal life. The reason is not the faithlessness of these fathers but the plan of God, whose promises all are "Yes" only in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20).

Wilson's is a moderate view among those trying to recast covenant theology. For many, the concern to account for the salvation of infants who die becomes the controlling issue in their entire doctrine of salvation. Unwilling to rest upon the silence with which Scripture treats the exceptional issue of how elect infants are saved (in contrast with that they are saved, of which Scripture is clear), they concoct a theology of salvation that recasts the normal situation of children of who do not die in infancy. Some insist that infants of Christian parents must be presumed regenerate on the basis of their possessing faith - the example of John the Baptist leaping in the womb is given to prove that infants can believe. Asserting that infants can believe, while granting that infants cannot understand biblical teaching, some go so far as to redefine faith in such a way that biblical understanding plays no necessary part. For others, John the Baptist's proof that an unborn infant can believe is combined with a presumption of regeneration in the case of all covenant infants. Others yet over-exegete passages like Matthew 18:14, where Jesus said of the covenant children that were brought to him, "for to such belongs the kingdom of God." This is taken as a blanket declaration that all covenant children are saved until such time as they should apostasy.

On these grounds, objection is made to the idea that we must lead our children to Christ and evangelize them with the aim of a credible profession of faith. This is not treating them as pagans, as though they have no standing or privilege in the church until such time as they show faith. It does not mean trying to engineer some revivalistic crisis so that our children can be converted, as has been charged. Yet another over-reaction is so to emphasize the significance of infant baptism that it practically supplants the place of personal faith. Baptism is indeed more than a wet dedication of our children, yet it grants no grace apart from our children's personal embrace of the gospel in saving faith; for all our gratitude for what baptism means for our children, it is only on credible evidence of faith in Christ that we should rest our own and our children's assurance of salvation. As Charles Hodge wrote, we receive God's promised salvation "not by birth, nor by any outward rite, nor by union with any external body, but by the gospel, received and appropriated by faith."

Overall, the confidence with which advocates of this recast covenant theology approach the status of our children before God is the most attractive feature of their writings. It has involved for many a potent corrective to the effects of revivalism within their homes, which has had so many look upon their children as utter pagans until they have had a crisis conversion to Christ, the engineering of which can dominate whole childhoods. The problem, however, is that many writers simply go to far in their zeal for the status of covenant children, failing to be rightly balanced by the whole counsel of God. We have no reason to presume regeneration - a dangerous conception if there ever was one - nor should we fail to note the difference between covenant children who have not made profession of faith and those who have. I am speaking in the latter case of the growing practice of paedo-communion, which on the basis of presumed regeneration admits little children to the Lord's Table, totally neglecting the apostle Paul's warnings in 1 Corinthians 11:28-31 against those who partake of Communion without personal faith in that which it signifies.
In other words, from the excesses of the revivalistic mentality, we may return to a more biblically balanced position regarding our children without the excesses of hyper-covenantalism. We may prayerfully aspire for our children to what David wrote in Psalm 22:9-10, without presuming that this happens in an automatic fashion: "You made me trust you at my mother's breasts"¦ From my mother's womb you have been my God." That should not be read as a technical statement by the great Psalmist, but as a poetic expression of God's life-long faithfulness to him. We can and should have a very high view of the spiritual situation of Christian children without an unbalanced view of their covenant position that warps our whole doctrine of salvation.41 One example of this comes from G. Campbell Morgan, hardly an advocate of overblown covenant theology, who taught his congregation:

Our first business is to bring the child into a recognition of its actual relationship to Christ, and a personal yielding thereto. Let it be done easily and naturally. Do not be anxious, if indeed your home is a Christian home, that your child should pass through any volcanic experience; but as soon as possible the little one should be able to say, Yes, I love Him and I will be His. It is as simple as the kiss of morning upon the brow of the hill, as the distilling of the moisture in the dew, or it ought to be. Thank God for men who, having wandered far away, have come back by volcanic methods, but thank God for the little ones who have been led to the point of yielding and finding their Lord before any other lord has had dominion over them.

 

[AdamM]

No one here is arguing for a crisis conversion, and I've never been to a reformed church that requires one for admittance to communion. I've sat in with the session during an interview (ouside my own) and all they look for is evidence of faith in Christ, not a crisis. I did not have a crisis conversion and I told that to both of the sessions of the churches I've been members of and it was not an obstacle to either session. So I think the charges of revivalism are completely overblown. There may be some influences here and there but it's not the reformed mainstream. So lets drop the strawmen please.

Well said Patrick. Nobody here is arguing for the necessity of crisis conversions or the use of revivalists methods. I think it is clear that the debate is really over the necessity of any type of conversion at all. Thomas Watson and Williams Guthrie never were Americans or congregationalists and I think most of us would agree that their thinking simply represents mainstream English Puritanism, which found its expression in our confessional standards. I also cringe to read that the Sinclair Ferguson, perhaps the finest, most well balanced theologian of our day is closet revivalist. That just doesn´t pass the sniff test.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott
Fred: I disagree with your historical assessment. The Half-Way Covenant came precisely out of the revivalistic view.

I would also be curious to know how you understand the proper enforcement of church censures against a child of covenant. It sounds like you are equating excommunication with simple suspension from the Lord's Supper. They are related but different. Excomunnication involves more; it involves casting the unbeliever out of fellowship.

Anyway, since you presume that children of the covenant are unbelievers, at what point should the Church start enforcing penalties against them, such as completely casting them out of fellowship?

Scott,

You can disagree, because it helps your argument, but you would simply be wrong. The New England Puritans were not revivalists - they ran Jonathan Edwards out of town because of his support for the Great Awakening. They did not eventually become Finneyites (like the Midwest and South), but rather they became Unitarians - partly through the influence of the Half-Way Covenant and its downplaying of conversion.

How in the world does one get from requiring a crisis conversion to requiring NO (yes NO, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH) conversion to partake of the Supper? Let's see - who does this (taking the supper without a profession (credible or not) of faith) sound more like:

A. Revivalists in our day who say you aren't saved unless you have an extraordinary ("saved from drugs and alcohol) experience

OR

B. RefCats who say that conversion is an afterthought, don't press your covenant children about it, and by the way, paedocommunion is the way to go.

Hmm?

 

[Scott]

Fred: Again, I am not saying that a person need not have faith in Christ to take the Lord's Supper. Of course he does. My thrust is the persective we should have toward covenant children.

As to the half-way covenant, again I don't think you understand what was going on or else you would not have risen to the defense of the early Puritans views, which clearly required crisis conversions and identification of that special "moment of revelation." As I understand, you expessly reject this view.

 

[Scott]

Fred: I would be interested on you answer to the questions I asked Adam. How does your view of children differ from that of a non-convenantal view (say that of a credobaptist)?

 

[Scott]

In terms of whether a "conversion" is required at all, let me be clear, a child must be able to affirmatively answer that he has faith in Christ before partaking of the Lord's Supper.

 

[raderag]

I have a few comments.

I have tried to read this thread, but it is very long. If I say something that has already been addressed, please forgive.

Firstly, I notice that much of the discussion revolves around what our confessions say as well as historical writings of others in our camp. While I believe our conclusions should be in this framework, it seems as if consulting WCF on an issue that it doesn't speak to is not that useful. If we want to understand the errors in revivalism, we should look to scripture as the first source. Secondly, we should look to the orthodox dealing with the issues during the revivalist period. We should assume that those that came before this error are going to err on both sides of the issues since it wasn't really that big of an issue. This is why prooftexting Augustine on sola fide is such a mistake; he seems to indicate an affirmation and denial of the doctine in his writings. In reality, Augustine was defending monergism, and not any specific doctrine on justification.

Secondly, I wonder if we shouldn't take a step out of our own tradition, and consider the law and Gospel distinction of our Lutheran friends. Rather than being concerned about when or how our conversion takes place, we need to consistently hear and teach both law and Gospel. There always needs to be a distinction. I think the Law and Gospel distinction is one that many reformed could learn from and more aptly apply. Ultimately, the lack of conversion is law, and we all need to hear. Our justification is Gospel, and we should all hear that also. The evangelical tendency is to preach law before conversion, and only gospel afterwards.

Here are some highlights from The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/lawandgospel.html

1] As the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is a special brilliant light, which serves to the end that God's Word may be rightly divided, and the Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles may be properly explained and understood, we must guard it with especial care, in order that these two doctrines may not be mingled with one another, or a law be made out of the Gospel, whereby the merit of Christ is obscured and troubled consciences are robbed of their comfort, which they otherwise have in the holy Gospel when it is preached genuinely and in its purity, and by which they can support themselves in their most grievous trials against the terrors of the Law.
3] Now, when we consider this dissent aright, it has been caused chiefly by this, that the term Gospel is not always employed and understood in one and the same sense, but in two ways, in the Holy Scriptures, as also by ancient and modern church teachers. 4] For sometimes it is employed so that there is understood by it the entire doctrine of Christ, our Lord, which He proclaimed in His ministry upon earth, and commanded to be proclaimed in the New Testament, and hence comprised in it the explanation of the Law and the proclamation of the favor and grace of God, His heavenly Father, as it is written, Mark 1, 1: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And shortly afterwards the chief heads are stated: Repentance and forgiveness of sins. Thus, when Christ after His resurrection commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel in all the world, Mark 16, 15, He compressed the sum of this doctrine into a few words, when He said, Luke 24, 46. 47: Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations. So Paul, too, calls his entire doctrine the Gospel, Acts 20, 21; but he embraces the sum of this doctrine under the two heads: Repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. 5] And in this sense the generalis definitio, that is, the description of the word Gospel, when employed in a wide sense and without the proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel is correct, when it is said that the Gospel is a preaching of repentance and the remission of sins. For John, Christ, and the apostles began their preaching with repentance and explained and urged not only the gracious promise of the forgiveness of sins, but also the Law of God. 6] Furthermore the term Gospel is employed in another, namely, in its proper sense, by which it comprises not the preaching of repentance, but only the preaching of the grace of God, as follows directly afterwards, Mark 1, 15, where Christ says: Repent, and believe the Gospel.
"¦
19] Thus, the Law reproves unbelief, [namely,] when men do not believe the Word of God. Now, since the Gospel, which alone properly teaches and commands to believe in Christ, is God's Word, the Holy Ghost, through the office of the Law, also reproves unbelief, that men do not believe in Christ, although it is properly the Gospel alone which teaches concerning saving faith in Christ.
20] However, now that man has not kept the Law of God, but transgressed it, his corrupt nature, thoughts, words, and works fighting against it, for which reason he is under God's wrath, death, all temporal calamities, and the punishment of hell-fire, the Gospel is properly a doctrine which teaches what man should believe, that he may obtain forgiveness of sins with God, namely, that the Son of God, our Lord Christ, has taken upon Himself and borne the curse of the Law, has expiated and paid for all our sins, through whom alone we again enter into favor with God, obtain forgiveness of sins by faith, are delivered from death and all the punishments of sins, and eternally saved.
21] For everything that comforts, that offers the favor and grace of God to transgressors of the Law, is, and is properly called, the Gospel, a good and joyful message that God will not punish sins, but forgive them for Christ's sake.
22] Therefore every penitent sinner ought to believe, that is, place his confidence in the Lord Christ alone, that He was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4, 25, that He was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him, 2 Cor. 5, 21, who of God is made unto us Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Sanctification, and Redemption, 1 Cor. 1, 30, whose obedience is counted to us for righteousness before God's strict tribunal, so that the Law, as above set forth, is a ministration that kills through the letter and preaches condemnation, 2 Cor. 3, 7, but the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, Rom. 1, 16, that preaches righteousness and gives the Spirit, 1 Cor. 1, 18; Gal. 3, 2. As Dr. Luther has urged this distinction with especial diligence in nearly all his writings, and has properly shown that the knowledge of God derived from the Gospel is far different from that which is taught and learned from the Law, because even the heathen to a certain extent had a knowledge of God from the natural law, although they neither knew Him aright nor glorified Him aright, Rom. 1, 20f.
23] From the beginning of the world these two proclamations [kinds of doctrines] have been ever and ever inculcated alongside of each other in the Church of God, with a proper distinction. For the descendants of the venerated patriarchs, as also the patriarchs themselves, not only called to mind constantly how in the beginning man had been created righteous and holy by God, and through the fraud of the Serpent had transgressed God's command, had become a sinner, and had corrupted and precipitated himself with all his posterity into death and eternal condemnation, but also encouraged and comforted themselves again by the preaching concerning the Seed of the Woman, who would bruise the Serpent's head, Gen. 3, 15; likewise, concerning the Seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, Gen. 22, 18; likewise, concerning David's Son, who should restore again the kingdom of Israel and be a light to the heathen, Ps. 110, 1; Is. 49, 6; Luke 2, 32, who was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, by whose stripes we are healed, Is. 53, 5.
24] These two doctrines, we believe and confess, should ever and ever be diligently inculcated in the Church of God even to the end of the world, although with the proper distinction of which we have heard, in order that, through the preaching of the Law and its threats in the ministry of the New Testament the hearts of impenitent men may be terrified, and brought to a knowledge of their sins and to repentance; but not in such a way that they lose heart and despair in this process, but that (since the Law is a schoolmaster unto Christ that we might be justified by faith, Gal. 3, 24, and thus points and leads us not from Christ, but to Christ, who is the end of the Law, Rom. 10, 4) 25] they be comforted and strengthened again by the preaching of the holy Gospel concerning Christ, our Lord, namely, that to those who believe the Gospel, God forgives all their sins through Christ, adopts them as children for His sake, and out of pure grace, without any merit on their part, justifies and saves them, however, not in such a way that they may abuse the grace of God, 26] and sin hoping for grace, as Paul, 2 Cor. 3, 7ff , thoroughly and forcibly shows the distinction between the Law and the Gospel.
27] Now, in order that both doctrines, that of the Law and that of the Gospel, be not mingled and confounded with one another, and what belongs to the one may not be ascribed to the other, whereby the merit and benefits of Christ are easily obscured and the Gospel is again turned into a doctrine of the Law, as has occurred in the Papacy, and thus Christians are deprived of the true comfort which they have in the Gospel against the terrors of the Law, and the door is again opened in the Church of God to the Papacy, therefore the true and proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel must with all diligence be inculcated and preserved, and whatever gives occasion for confusion inter legem et evangelium (between the Law and the Gospel), that is, whereby the two doctrines, Law and Gospel, may be confounded and mingled into one doctrine, should be diligently prevented. It is, therefore, dangerous and wrong to convert the Gospel, properly so called, as distinguished from the Law, into a preaching of repentance or reproof [a preaching of repentance, reproving sin]. For otherwise, if understood in a general sense of the entire doctrine, also the Apology says several times that the Gospel is a preaching of repentance and the forgiveness of sins. Meanwhile, however, the Apology also shows that the Gospel is properly the promise of the forgiveness of sins and of justification through Christ, but that the Law is a doctrine which reproves sins and condemns.

Of course we should remember that revivalism came from the great Presbyterian, Charles Finney. :0

[Edited on 2-12-2004 by raderag]

 

[turmeric]

That's what we have at our church - law & gospel every Sunday. It seems that the gospel is a sanctifying force as well as a converting force.

 

[AdamM]

Where does reformed theology teach that baptism is a call to salvation? It sounds like you see baptism as an evangelistic tool

Actually, the meaning of baptism encompasses the whole of salvation. To put it another way, I think our goal is to get our children to say "œamen" to their baptism.

How does your view of children differ from that of any non-convenantal view?

Scott, I thought I had answered this question previously in the thread, but I guess further elaboration will be helpful.

Here according to our standards are some of the things we can definitively affirm about the status of ALL our covenant children:

- They are Federally Holy. (DPW)
- They have been set apart from the world. (WCF 27-1)
- As covenant members they have a right to training, discipline and care from the church.
- They are members of visible church, the historical administration of the administration of the COG. (WCF 25-2)
-That baptism is means of grace for our covenant children who receive it in personal faith (WCF 28-6)
- That personal faith is not tied to the moment of administration. (WCF 28-6)

I am confident that my position is squarely in line with the scriptures and the confessional standards of my denomination (PCA). I simply fail to see how a rejection of presumed regeneration equates with revivalism or makes any view other then presumptive regeneration the same as Baptists? I affirm that our children are members of the visible church, in the historical administration of the COG and therefore have a right to the sign and seal of the covenant. I affirm that our children are Federally Holy, set apart, separated from the world. I affirm that baptism is efficacious when received in faith and that faith is not tied to the moment of administration. I affirm that God´s grace is sovereign, but not arbitrary and that the covenant is a powerful instrument used by God to communicate grace.

What I strongly reject is idea that the act of baptism confers grace apart from personal faith (opus operatum) or that the non-elect within the administration of the covenant of grace receive union with Christ through baptism. The standards (LC 166 & SC 95) clearly state that baptism is to be administered to infants in regard to their relationship to the administration of the covenant (as members of the visible church,) not based upon presumed regeneration. Unless we are willing to abandon the visible/visible church distinction, then membership in the visible church is no basis for us to presume that a person belongs to the invisible church (that is why the standards make the distinction.) Therefore as parents the goal of our seeking God, prayer and nurture is to get our children to close with Christ in faith (say "amen" to their baptism.) I don´t think that our covenant children coming to faith is out of the norm, because as I indicated earlier, God´s grace is sovereign (which rules out presumption,) but not arbitrary.

 

[AdamM]

Scott, here are a few related questions that I think it would be helpful for you think about and let us know your views on:

1. Is it ever proper to call members of covenant (baptized members in good standing of the visible church) to repentance and personal faith in Christ?

2. Does the covenant in its historical administration contain both the elect and non-elect?

3. Does a person who has received the sign and seal of the covenant, necessarily possess the thing signified by the sign?

4. Does the act of water baptism itself bring about union with Christ?

5. Do the sacraments confer grace apart from their reception by personal faith?

6. What grace is signed and sealed to the non-elect in baptism?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by AdamM

Where does reformed theology teach that baptism is a call to salvation? It sounds like you see baptism as an evangelistic tool

Actually, the meaning of baptism encompasses the whole of salvation. To put it another way, I think our goal is to get our children to say "œamen" to their baptism.

How does your view of children differ from that of any non-convenantal view?

Scott, I thought I had answered this question previously in the thread, but I guess further elaboration will be helpful.

Here according to our standards are some of the things we can definitively affirm about the status of ALL our covenant children:

- They are Federally Holy. (DPW)
- They have been set apart from the world. (WCF 27-1)
- As covenant members they have a right to training, discipline and care from the church.
- They are members of visible church, the historical administration of the administration of the COG. (WCF 25-2)
-That baptism is means of grace for our covenant children who receive it in personal faith (WCF 28-6)
- That personal faith is not tied to the moment of administration. (WCF 28-6)

I am confident that my position is squarely in line with the scriptures and the confessional standards of my denomination (PCA). I simply fail to see how a rejection of presumed regeneration equates with revivalism or makes any view other then presumptive regeneration the same as Baptists? I affirm that our children are members of the visible church, in the historical administration of the COG and therefore have a right to the sign and seal of the covenant. I affirm that our children are Federally Holy, set apart, separated from the world. I affirm that baptism is efficacious when received in faith and that faith is not tied to the moment of administration. I affirm that God´s grace is sovereign, but not arbitrary and that the covenant is a powerful instrument used by God to communicate grace.

What I strongly reject is idea that the act of baptism confers grace apart from personal faith (opus operatum) or that the non-elect within the administration of the covenant of grace receive union with Christ through baptism. The standards (LC 166 & SC 95) clearly state that baptism is to be administered to infants in regard to their relationship to the administration of the covenant (as members of the visible church,) not based upon presumed regeneration. Unless we are willing to abandon the visible/visible church distinction, then membership in the visible church is no basis for us to presume that a person belongs to the invisible church (that is why the standards make the distinction.) Therefore as parents the goal of our seeking God, prayer and nurture is to get our children to close with Christ in faith (say "amen" to their baptism.) I don´t think that our covenant children coming to faith is out of the norm, because as I indicated earlier, God´s grace is sovereign (which rules out presumption,) but not arbitrary.

and again I say

Adam, you need to plant a church or something in the next couple of years. I really want to work with you!!

[Edited on 12/3/2004 by fredtgreco]

 

[Scott]

Fred: Where do you think you will pastor?

 

[Scott]

Adam:

In response to your questions:

1. Is it ever proper to call members of covenant (baptized members in good standing of the visible church) to repentance and personal faith in Christ?

Yes. This includes adults.

2. Does the covenant in its historical administration contain both the elect and non-elect?

Yes.

3. Does a person who has received the sign and seal of the covenant, necessarily possess the thing signified by the sign?

No.

4. Does the act of water baptism itself bring about union with Christ?

No.

5. Do the sacraments confer grace apart from their reception by personal faith?

No.

6. What grace is signed and sealed to the non-elect in baptism?

Common operations of the Spirit.