James Henley Thornwell's View of How to Treat Covenant Children

[Joshua]

Must've been reading different Puritans than I have.

 

[RamistThomist]

That quote is from David Engelsma, is it not?

The first one is. The others are from conversations I had with a pastor who was in the Canadian Reformed Churches.

 

[RamistThomist]

Must've been reading different Puritans than I have.

Depends which Puritans. English Puritans were generally okay on this. New England Puritans, with their disastrous Halfway Covenant, were generally not okay.

Perry Miller was wrong to equate all Puritans with the New England Puritans. He was right in what he said about the New England Puritans, though.

 

[Joshua]

Depends which Puritans. English Puritans were generally okay on this. New England Puritans, with their disastrous Halfway Covenant, were generally not okay.

Perry Miller was wrong to equate all Puritans with the New England Puritans. He was right in what he said about the New England Puritans, though.

Gotcha. I never think of the 'Murican guys when I hear/read/think about Puritans unsolicited. Shows my Brit bias?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Must've been reading different Puritans than I have.

I think he (David Engelsma) has cited "Puritans" such as Thomas Brooks and Thomas Goodwin who believed that infallible assurance was rare and only for a select few of the elect. This view (if accurate) is an excess, and it would appear to be more congruous with the Westminster Standards to hold that saving faith should grow up to full assurance in every mature believer.

 

[Joshua]

I've not read much of Goodwin, so cannot speak to his writing; however, I have read through multiple volumes of Mr. Brooks, and I would need to see these citations of his, and appreciate their context, because I've not gathered that "sense" from his work at all.

 

[TheOldCourse]

I take your point. My use of the word "passage" inadvertently gives the wrong impression since it is indeed not one long continuous body of text. However, I did note this was from the six page section that I hyperlinked. The text attributed to Thornwell in my OP was not synthesized by me, but by a Presbyterian minister who was critiquing Thornwell's position. I double checked the pages cited from Thornwell's Collected Works to make sure it was indeed cited accurately, but I did not read the whole volume. My hope was to make some of what Thornwell said accessible instead of asking everyone to read dozens of pages from an old archived scan that I hyperlinked.

Since you are familiar with Thornwell's works would you say his views towards covenant children are representative of his time? Were there views common among Presbyterians in the South that differed from their contemporaries in the North?

Have a great night!

Hi B.L., I kind of figured that you had pulled the quote from another source. It seems constructed intentionally to engender controversy and yet I did not think that it was your own intention to do so. As others have pointed out there is a diversity of views in Presbyterianism on the subject. We have generally rejected presumptive regeneration but I think may might feel that Thornwell comes down too strongly on the other side. As I recall, this passage is in the context of church discipline and especially with relation to excommunication and he is taking up the implications of our covenant children being effectively excommunicated from the Lord's Table. It probably needs to be read in that context. Elsewhere and even earlier in the same section he affirms that covenant children are of a different class than the nonbeliever and, as I recall, he held with Hodge and others that, while we cannot presume the regeneration of children, nevertheless there is a hopeful expectation of it and that we should expect, though perhaps not infallibly, to see covenant children who die in infancy with our Lord in heaven. It's been quite a few years since I spent a lot of time in Thornwell's writings, however.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I've not read much of Goodwin, so cannot speak to his writing; however, I have read through multiple volumes of Mr. Brooks, and I would need to see these citations of his, and appreciate their context, because I've not gathered that "sense" from his work at all.

I have seen one quote posted in a Facebook forum from "Heaven on Earth" where Thomas Brooks apparently held the view described above, but, like yourself, I would need to see more to be entirely convinced that it accurately reflected his position.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

It is a good thing that most who hold the Baptistic position do not take it to its logical ends.

Please enlighten me as to what you believe the "logical ends" of the Baptist position to be.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I feel like my cautionary statement has gone over the head or under the feet of this or that participant. For which I take the blame.

I recommend:

If you are a Presbyterian, don't claim that a Baptist-conviction entails [insert deleterious doctrinal/practical result].

If you are a Baptist, don't claim that a Presbyterian-conviction entails [insert deleterious doctrinal/practical result].
​

For one thing, there are over 400 years of observable practical results that belie either stance. And saying that those portions of either side not fallen into the ditch are the lucky few, is most likely special pleading.

Sadly, most Presbyterians and most Baptists (in names) have all declined from redoubtable churches, to remnant bodies. And no outsider criticism of the "sad fruits of their theology" escapes the echo and backfiring effects.

 

[Kinghezy]

I feel like my cautionary statement has gone over the head

Hmm, sounds like immersion.

or under the feet of this or that participant.

Yikes, that sounds like feet washing!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[JTB.SDG]

I think he (David Engelsma) has cited "Puritans" such as Thomas Brooks and Thomas Goodwin who believed that infallible assurance was rare and only for a select few of the elect. This view (if accurate) is an excess, and it would appear to be more congruous with the Westminster Standards to hold that saving faith should grow up to full assurance in every mature believer.

Indeed, I believe David Engelsma has been called out on not getting some details right before in his writings (though I'm not sure about this one). Incidently, it was he who ascribed the quote to Jonathan Edwards about covenant children being "little vipers", which we haven't been able to confirm. I know that Beeke wrote a public letter to him confronting him about errors that he said Engelsma circulated in his own writings about what Beeke's denomination believed about children in the covenant.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Indeed, I believe David Engelsma has been called out on not getting some details right before in his writings (though I'm not sure about this one). Incidently, it was he who ascribed the quote to Jonathan Edwards about covenant children being "little vipers", which we haven't been able to confirm. I know that Beeke wrote a public letter to him confronting him about errors that he said Engelsma circulated in his own writings about what Beeke's denomination believed about children in the covenant.

That letter would be interesting to read, though from what I have read in Joel Beeke's Bringing the Gospel to Covenant Children, there is room for a critique of his opinions. While I have met DJE and found some of his writings useful, his polemic material does, at times, leave a lot to be desired.