Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Any Difference at All?

All right. I believe I'm satisfied with this form of the overall question:

To what degree are the young children of professing believers to be treated (on that basis alone) as members and participants in the covenant people of God?

I suppose it would make sense to begin by examining the question of fact before discussing the question of degree.

So what scriptural evidence is there that such children have any degree of membership or participation in God's covenant people? What scriptural basis is there for making any distinction in this regard between children born into believing households and those born into unbelieving households?

Come on. We're moving too slowly for Margaret.

11 comments:

christian said...

Maybe I'm not answering your question correctly, but I liken my kids to the Jews as Paul sees them in Romans 3:1-2, "What advantage has the Jew? Or what value has circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God." My kids have been covered in prayer since conception. Since their birth they have been in the company of believers trying to walk by faith and humility. They will be exposed to the Word of God, people of God and (hopefull) the ways and power of God far more often (and as a way of life) than kids of unbelievers. Ultimately, they do have to embrace the faith personally, but they have a better "advantage" to do this by growing up in our believing home.

David Mohler said...

1. I think it is a fair assertion to say, "Covenant people are of a different Kingdom: the 'Kingdom of Heaven'."

2. Scriptural evidence exists that children have some degree of participation: "Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not. For such is the Kingdom of Heaven."

3. I don't think there is any scriptural basis regarding children born into unbelieving households. If there were, then Christ's commandment in Matt. 28 to preach the gospel to "every creature" would be ambiguous. Secondly, other children in scripture were born in non-covenant households (Ruth comes to mind) and were made partakers of the covenant; which brings up a thrid point about the batch of us gentiles being made partakers of the covenant, as adopted sons of Abraham.

Anonymous said...

I was hoping to see what you had. I've never seen the Biblical argument that supports making infants part of the covenant community by the action of their parents in having them baptized.

Brad said...

Hey folks,

Wrapping up a busy school year; I'll have something to say soon.

Rev, I'm not quite to the baptism issue yet, but I'll be getting there before long.

Brad said...

Incidentally Rev, the paedobaptist position (at least the Reformed version with which I am most familiar) is not that parents baptize their children to bring them into the covenant community, but rather that they baptize them because they believe that, by virtue of God's promises, they already are members of that community.

That's why I'm beginning with the more foundational issue of covenant status. The answer to this question takes us a long way (not all the way, of course) toward answering the question about baptism.

Anonymous said...

Okay. I'll be looking forward to seeing which promises of God are interpreted to mean that children are members of that community.

Make sure to address this question. "If a child starts as a member of the community, can they lose that status and, if so, how?"

Barbara said...

As Brad finishes up the year, let me recommend the following paper by Rev. Dr. Robert Rayburn, pastor of Faith PCA, Tacoma WA:

THE PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN, COVENANT NURTURE AND COVENANT SUCCESSION

Barbara said...

Oh, sorry. The link will open in this window. It would be better to open it in a separate window so here is the url:

http://www.faithtacoma.org/doctrine/covenant.aspx

David Mohler said...

I also would offer an article by Menno Simmons written in 1554. In his "Reply to Gellius Faber", section III offers a succinct compilation of both the scriptural and historical reasons that infant baptism had been abandoned by the anabaptists. (There is also an earlier writing from 1539 called the "Foundation of Christian Doctrine", in which section 6 is devoted to a theological refutation of paedobaptism.

In the 17,337 word paper by Rev. Dr. Rayburn, aside from the plethora of extra-biblical reasoning, I find disturbing theological implications which call into question God's preservation of the saints. I refer specifically to subsections I thru IV under the heading of "The Doctrine of Covenant Succession in Scripture".

Noel said...

Hello Brad,
I didn't have a chance to meet you when I came to your church a few weeks ago. I meet with Kelly Brockman every couple of weeks. I just had to let you know I enjoyed your pictures on the previous post. Being a Star Wars fan, I thought it was hilarious!
Thanks,
Noel
www.xanga.com/noelthe3rd

yo_mama said...

To shed light on the question, I'd ask another question: to what degree were children of believers in the old covenant to be treated as members and participants in the covenant of God? Then, how has this changed (if at all) in the new testament? The answer to the first is simple--to the highest possible degree. This may be helpful since things were more explicit in these regards in the OT.