What Do You Think We'll Find?

In the last post, I highlighted these four points.

1) In the OT, God’s covenants with his people were established with entire households.
2) In the OT, The children of God’s people were entitled, from birth, to the promises of the covenant.
3) In the OT, The children of God’s people were bound, from birth, to the duties of the covenant.
4) In the OT, fathers among God’s people were required to bring their children up in the covenant.

True to good Calvinist form, I want to note a fifth point that I believe might also be helpful in examining the present question:

5) In the Old Testament, outsiders who desired to enter into covenant with God brought their households along with them.

We see this, for example in Exodus, 12:48:

If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.

When a gentile, an outsider, desired to partake of God’s Passover, that meal that symbolized the fulfillment of God's covenant promises, when he wanted to leave his alien status behind and become as a native of the land, he was required to take for himself the sign of God’s covenant, the sign of circumcision. But note that, just as Abraham did not enter into this covenant alone, so too, the proselyte was required to apply this sign to all the males of his household (Presumably, by the way, because ALL these would be partaking of the meal).

So, it would seem, this same principle that is established at the initial formation of God's covenant (that these covenants are household affairs), also applies to the later inclusion of outsiders. As I say, I believe this paradigm could be somewhat illuminating as we begin to consider the New Testament’s teaching on these same issues.

Considering, then, the five points highlighted above, when we put them all together, I don’t see how we can avoid the conclusion that, in the Old Testament, children born to parents in covenant with God were, by virtue of their very birth, themselves in covenant with God.

And here, of course, is the next step: What if we find that these same five things are true in the New Testament? What if the New Covenant is initiated with entire households, what if outsiders are brought in to this covenant with their households, what if children born into these households are treated as heirs of the promises and obligors to the commands of the covenant, what if we find that the same duty is laid upon fathers to bring their children up in the covenant? If all these things should be found true in the New Testament, how can we avoid the conclusion that, in the New Testament, just as in the Old, children born to parents in covenant with God are, by virtue of their very birth, themselves in covenant with God?

Doug Wilson on the Church Calendar

Defining Our Days

Abraham's Covenant Children

I think yo-mama has, in the last comment thread, given me a very good place to pick up:

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.

Some observations from the Pentateuch to put some meat to her very helpful comment:

When God established his covenant with Abraham in Gen 17, He was also explicitly making this covenant with Abraham's children throughout their generations forever. These children were, therefore, by their very birth, to be considered within the bounds of that covenant, and all the males were automatically to receive circumcision as the sign thereof. We read in Gen 18 that this arrangement carried with it the obligation upon Abraham to "command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice"

From the day that children were born into these covenant households, then, they had claim on the promises of the covenant (that God would give them a land) and were bound by the duties (to keep the LORD's ways). Their fathers had the responsibility to command them in these ways. Again, none of this was dependent upon anything other than their being born into Abraham's family. This same arrangement is established to each of the patriarchs in turn (Gen 26).

It seems to me that in this foundational example, we see the essential elements of what it means to be in covenant with God. When I say that someone is in covenant with God, I mean that they are 1) rightful claimants of the promises given and 2) proper subjects of the duties proscribed. Again, this was presumed to be true of Abraham's descendants as soon as they were born.

These same principles hold true through the rest of the Torah. God's covenant with his people developed and new promises and new duties were revealed, promises and duties connected with the Passover (Ex 12), with the priesthood (Ex 30) and certainly with Israel's stay at Sinai (Ex. 20), all of which were automatically to be passed on from father to son. Moses reiterated these truths as Israel was preparing to enter the promised land (Deut 6).

So, to what degree were children of believers in the Old Covenant to be treated as members and participants in the covenant of God? Yo-mama's answer appears quite consistent with what I've been able to find in the Pentateuch: to the highest possible degree. Each child born into an Israelite household was-from his very birth- presumed to be 1) entitled to inheritance of all the promises and 1) obligated to performance of all the duties of that covenant.

I want to press on through the Psalms and prophets before considering to what extent (if any) this arrangement has been altered with respect to the New Covenant. I'd also like first to consider Rev's question about the status of those leaving the covenant from the perspective of the entire OT. The phrase "cut off from his people" is the only thing that comes to mind so far.

The Curtis Duncan Project

We'll be singing out at Taffey's in Eaton Friday night from 8 till around 10:30. We'll also be in Clayton at the BRDhouse cafe on xxxxxx. Come on out.

CORRECTION: We'll be at the BRDhouse on Thursday June 21.

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.

The Future of Presbyterianism in North Dayton: A New Hope

Girded for Action

Younglings in Training

The Destiny of Unbelief

So What About Our Children?

I'd like to start thinking through some issues about the children of believers.

Some Christian traditions baptize their children before any profession of faith; others dedicate them instead. Some traditions have been known to encourage their children to "sow their wild oats" and let them come to their own decision to follow Christ later in life; others treat them as functional believers from birth. Some traditions allow young children to partake in the Lord's supper, others adamantly forbid them. In some traditions, parents express great anxiety about their children's salvation and are only relieved when their children have made a "credible" profession of faith; in others, they are satisfied with their children's simple trust in whatever their parents tell them to believe.

There are a whole host of issues wrapped up in these different approaches to children, several foundational doctrines underlying each perspective. A Christian's view of his children will be intimately connected with his understanding of the true nature of the church, the true nature of God's covenant with his people, the relationship between the Old and New covenants, the nature of the sacraments, the nature of true faith and conversion and so on and so forth. I'm beginning to think that in many ways, one's doctrine of children can reveal almost the entirety of that person's theology.

Here's what I'm after in this initial post. I want to try and determine what the real points of difference are between these various understandings of the children of believers and their relationship to the church. How are we to frame the question? What is the crux of the matter, the point of stasis?

Is it a matter of young children being members/ non-members of the church? partakers/non-partakers of God's covenant with his people? different/no different from the children of pagans? capable/incapable of true faith? Is it a question of what the default assumption should be? out until proven to be in/in until proven to be out? Are they to be treated as Christians? pagans? some third category?

Maybe the question is as simple as this: as Christians, should we treat our young children as if they are Christians or non-Christians?

I'm not ready to start talking about the answer yet. What do you see as the question? If we had to identify one central issue, one point of disagreement upon which all of these practical differences are based, what would it be? One side says that the children of believers are X, the other side says that they are non-X. What's the variable here?