The Equality of Jews and Gentiles in the Church

In a previous blog post, I answered the objections of a brother who did not respond positively to my answer to his questions about amillennialism. Sadly, the brother continued to accuse me of allegorical interpretation, of eisegesis, of promoting "Replacement Theology" heresy, and of pride while failing to interact with the Scriptural arguments I had presented. To these, he added the charge of anti-semitism, claimed that I could not define the church, and claimed Revelation 20 cannot refer to the present time because Isaiah 65:20 teaches that there will be no infant death in the millennium and people would be living to 100 years of age. To his credit, he approved of my view on "salvific essentials," and advised me to pray about my view of eschatology and to keep searching. This blog post includes some of my answer.

Isaiah 65 refers to the eternal state in the new heavens and new earth (Isa. 65:17). It specifically says this in verse 17. It is also, incidentally, a vision using Old Testament pictures and earthly figures to illustrate what the eternal state will be like. If not interpreted as such, one would have to conclude that there is literally death still in the eternal state, which is absurd and contrary to all the rest of Scripture which speaks to the subject of eternal life (e.g., I Cor. 15:53-54). Update: Amazingly, his answer to my explanation of Isaiah 65 was that the "new heavens and new earth" referred to the millennial kingdom--not very literal for a dispensationalist!

I was not previously asked to define the church. Here is my definition: The church is the company of the predestinate. That is, all the elect in Christ from the beginning of history to the end. In the pre-diluvian world, the church was gathered from the line of Seth, until only Noah's family remained. Afterwards, the church was gathered from the line of Abraham. Now, the church is gathered from both Jews and Gentiles, as the Scripture says:

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham (Gal 3:7-9).

And again:

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him (Rom 10:12).

We are the circumcision: 

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh (Phil. 3:3).

We are the true Jews: 

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God (Rom 2:28-29).

Do you, reader, call this heresy and antisemitism? Are you offended by this word? The Jews were also offended, and many to their eternal destruction, as Isaiah prophesied:

As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed (Rom 9:33).

Here is the offence to the unbelieving Jew, that the believer is blessed, and not the mere physical descendants:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham (Matt. 3:9).

Christ has broken the partition between Jew and Gentile by His cross. We share in the same inheritance and the same promises and the same kingdom:

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but **fellowcitizens** with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord (Eph. 2:11-21).

And again:

Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be **fellowheirs**, and **of the same body**, and **partakers of his promise** in Christ by the gospel (Eph. 3:4-6).

Not those of the law are heirs, but those of faith:

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect (Rom 4:13-14).

And the promise of Canaan was the promise of the world pictured by Canaan: the heavenly country which Abraham desired and looked for.

But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city (Heb. 11:16).

God is therefore ashamed of those who look for an earthly kingdom. The gospel which Christ came to preach, and which we believe and follow, is the gospel of the kingdom of heaven:

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel (Mark 1:15).

Quotation of the Four Major Points

What follows is my quotation of the four major points asserted by the Declaration of Principles adopted by the 1952 Synod of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (explicit confessional proof is attached to each point, along with some further important statements in the original document):

On the basis of this Word of God and these confessions [the Three Forms of Unity as well as the ten minor forms]:

1. They [the Protestant Reformed Churches] repudiate the errors of the Three Points adopted by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church of Kalamazoo, 1924, which maintain:

   1. That there is a grace of God to all men, including the reprobate, manifest in the common gifts to all men.

   2. That the preaching of the gospel is gracious offer of salvation on the part of God to all that externally hear the gospel.

   3. That the natural man through the influence of common grace can do good in this world.

   4. Over against this they maintain:

      1. That the grace of God is always particular, i.e., only for the elect, never for the reprobate.

      2. That the preaching of the gospel is not a gracious offer of salvation on the part of God to all men, nor a conditional offer to all that are born in the historical dispensation of the covenant, that is, to all that are baptized, but an oath of God that He will infallibly lead all the elect unto salvation and eternal glory through faith.

      3. That the unregenerate man is totally incapable of doing any good, wholly depraved, and therefore can only sin.

2. They teach on the basis of the same confessions:

   1. That election, which is the unconditional and unchangeable decree of God to redeem in Christ a certain number of persons, is the sole cause and fountain of all our salvation, whence flow all the gifts of grace, including faith.

   2. That Christ died only for the elect and that the saving efficacy of the death of Christ extends to them only.

   3. That faith is not a prerequisite or condition unto salvation, but a gift of God, and a God-given instrument whereby we appropriate the salvation in Christ.

3. Seeing then that this is the clear teaching of our confession,

   1. We repudiate

      1. The teaching that the promise of the covenant is conditional and for all that are baptized.

      2. The teaching that we may presuppose that all the children that are baptized are regenerated, for we know on the basis of Scripture, as well as in the light of all history and experience, that the contrary is true.

      3. [We also repudiate] the teaching that the promise of the covenant is an objective bequest on the part of God, giving to every baptized child the right to Christ and all the blessings of salvation.

   2. And we maintain:

      1. That God surely and infallibly fulfills His promise to the elect.

      2. The sure promise of God which He realizes in us as rational and moral creatures not only makes it impossible that we should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness but also confronts us with the obligation of love, to walk in a new and holy life, and constantly to watch unto prayer.

         All those who are not thus disposed, who do not repent but walk in sin, are the objects of His just wrath and excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

         That the preaching comes to all; and that God seriously commands to faith and repentance; and that to all those who come and believe He promises life and peace.

      3. [We also maintain] that the ground of infant baptism is the command of God and the fact that according to Scripture He established His covenant in the line of continued generations.

4. Besides, the Protestant Reformed Churches believe and maintain the autonomy of the local church.

What God has joined together...

Because the covenant of God is a gracious covenant, so that it depends only upon God Himself in all its establishment and maintenance with all the elect in Christ, the Reformed faith has rejected conditions in the covenant. The concept of conditions is especially attributed in the Canons of Dordt to the errors of the Arminians. However some have misunderstood the rejection of conditions (whether deliberately in malice or mistakenly in confusion). Some have even gone so far as to accuse those who faithfully teach the Reformed faith according to Scripture of re-introducing or promoting conditions when we speak of things which God has joined together both in His eternal counsel and in His revealed will.

Their argument is very simple, if God will not do a certain work (e.g. bestow a particular blessing) except in the case that some other thing is present, occurs, or is done, either strictly first or at the same time (whether logically or temporally), then this is plainly a condition. But the argument falls over at the outset because it uses the broadest possible definition of condition rather than asking what exactly the Reformed confessions mean when they reject conditions. It is a simple example of equivocation: one man uses a word in a particular sense, and chooses not to use this word because it can be used in this particular sense, and then an accuser uses the word in a different sense, and accuses the man for not rejecting this sense also.

The root idea of the term "condition" is not limited to the sense rejected at Dordt. The broadest possible meaning is simply two or more things which must agree together from the Latin "con-" (with) and "dicere" (to say). Because this term has been abused historically (especially by the Arminians), the best of the Reformed faith tradition has avoided the use of the term without qualification in favour of more precise, careful and distinctive language. Scripture does not use the term condition, but the broad concept is present in at least three legitimate senses which it commends, and also in at least three illegitimate senses which it condemns. The simplest way to survey these different senses, and to have the right judgement of them, is to consider God's eternal counsel from the viewpoint of His absolute sovereignty and in harmony with all His attributes such as His wisdom, holiness, justice, and righteousness.

The three illegitimate senses, all used by Arminians, and more or less used by other conditional covenant theologians are as follows:

1. Something which distinguishes a man from others, by which he receives what was supposedly offered or promised by God to more than those to whom He determined to give what was offered or promised
2. Something that man is able to do to cause himself to differ from others in order to receive something supposedly offered or promised by God
3. Something outside of God upon which some aspect of God's eternal counsel depends

There is some overlap between these. The third sense is the most obviously contrary to Scripture and plain reason. If God's counsel is eternal there was nothing with God when He determined all things, and Scripture plainly teaches that there is nothing outside God's counsel, and that all things happen according to the good pleasure of His will:

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." (Job 38:4) 

"But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." (Psalms 115:3) 

"Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?" (Isaiah 40:13-14) 

"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Daniel 4:35) 

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28) 

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:" (Ephesians 1:11)

Since the third sense is explicitly rejected in Scripture, by implication, the second sense is also rejected. There can be nothing that man can do to cause himself to differ from others for anything. That God alone causes men to differ from one another is also explicitly taught in Scripture:

"Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?" (Isaiah 45:9) 

"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Romans 9:16-21) 

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (1 Corinthians 4:7) 

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10)

Then remains the first sense which so often undergirds or leads directly to the second sense. It is often used alone by conditional covenant theologians, who are often too happy to leave the ignorant to conclude by implication the second sense without instructing them otherwise. This is typically presented as either that God promises salvation to all baptized children, or that God promises salvation to all hearers of the gospel, but they will only receive the promise if they fulfil the condition. When questioned, some of these will protest that men fulfil the condition only by the effectual work of grace, and they may either honestly or dishonestly deny that they intend the second, overtly Arminian sense, but either way the logic is difficult to escape for two reasons.

First, they do not always explicitly deny that man can cause himself to differ from others in order to fulfil this type of condition proposed by a universal or broad offer. This leaves the possibility open to the interpretation of the hearer. Second, the whole premise is not only difficult to describe, but plainly absurd. If it is God who makes a man to differ so that he fulfils this type of proposed condition, it is thoroughly absurd to speak of God offering or promising anything to those in whom God has determined not to fulfil the condition, and then also absurd to speak of God fulfilling His own condition as if something was in doubt or as if God's counsel were not immutable and eternal. Further, if the promise is only to those who will actually receive what is promised, it is absurd to speak of an offer, as if it could be rejected effectually. Therefore, the most natural implication of this sense, to resolve the absurdities, would be that man can do something to make himself to differ from others. This is why for example, Amyraldianism naturally leads to the more logically consistent Arminian position, and why conditional covenant theology has led to the Federal Vision. Besides this, Scripture also explicitly rejects this first sense, because God's promises are always sure for all to whom they are given:

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all," (Romans 4:16) 

"That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Romans 9:8) 

"For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." (2 Corinthians 1:20) 

"Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;" (Hebrews 6:17-19)

What then are the legitimate senses in Scripture, if we can speak of these senses as a kind of condition at all without being extremely unhelpful and confusing? These are at least as follows:

1. Two or more things joined together by a necessary order in God's eternal counsel
2. Two or more things joined together by a necessary means in God's eternal counsel
3. Two or more things joined together by a necessary manner in God's eternal counsel

Now we can move from absurdly complicated and unbiblical philosophy into very simple and elegant biblical categories. These three are so obvious, that the very blind can recognize them from the mere surface of Scripture. The reason that two or more things can be necessarily joined together in God's eternal counsel is related to the proper understanding of who God is. In a sense, all things are joined inseparably in God's counsel, as Christ is the goal and purpose for all of history and creation and everything in heaven and earth. God's wisdom fits everything into its proper place, with all the right interconnections and establishing all the appropriate proximate causes and effects with the sum all working perfectly towards the goal of God's incomparable glory. At the risk of sounding condescending (since we can all already think of multiple biblical examples for each of these), I'll give one clear example of each.

First, in God's eternal counsel, there is a necessary order established concerning the resurrection:

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." (1 Corinthians 15:23)

One could say that Christ's resurrection is a condition for ours, since His must come first. One could even say more in this case, since the relationship between Christ's resurrection and ours is not merely that His comes first, but this suffices to show God establishes a necessary order.

Second, in God's eternal counsel, there is a necessary means established concerning the new testament:

"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." (Hebrews 9:15-16)

Christ's death was therefore a necessary means by which we receive the promise of eternal inheritance. One could say that His death was a condition for our reception of the promised inheritance, but this is unclear and potentially confusing. More accurate is to explain the precise relationship, that His death was a necessary means, and better yet, then explain how Christ's death functions as a means.

Third, in God's eternal counsel, there is a necessary manner established concerning our high priest's life:

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Hebrews 2:17-18)

It was necessary in God's eternal counsel that the manner of Christ's life should be one in which He suffered being tempted, and that therefore He must be made like unto His brethren. One could say that His being tempted in our human nature was a condition for Him to be a merciful and faithful high priest, but less confusing and more appropriate would be to explain how and why these two things must be joined together in agreement in God's eternal counsel.

I have deliberately given examples central to our Christian faith, which few gainsayers should have the audacity to deny. I could have also multiplied examples concerning the necessary order of our salvation, the necessary means of our salvation, and the necessary manner of our salvation, all three of which include to an extent God-worked human activities in their proper places. The following are some very brief but clear examples which I won't elucidate now, good works preceding the reward of grace in a necessary order, faith as a necessary means in pleasing God, and holiness as a necessary manner in seeing God:

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." (Revelation 22:12)

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:" (Hebrews 12:14)

If God has joined these things together, rather than object, as if these are some kind of Arminian conditions, we ought to understand properly what the relationship is and why God has established this relationship, and in so doing, we will grow in our knowledge of God, and grow in our understanding of how we ought to glorify Him.

How NOT to train up a child - Michael Pearl

I read about this sad story recently about a well-known but dreadful book by Michael Pearl. Training a dumb animal is nothing like bringing up a child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The rod cannot be used without reproof. Our discipline must be limited by what a child can properly understand--otherwise it is not spiritual discipline, just senseless violence. Also just as we ought to flee temptation, we ought to keep our children away from temptation, not put stumbling blocks in front of them.

To be honest, I would not let people like that even train my dog (if I had one). 

"A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." - Prov. 12:10.

As for Christ's little ones: 

"And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." - Eph. 6:4.
"Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged." - Col. 3:21.
"The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame." - Prov. 29:15.

The goal of discipline administered by Christian parents ought never to be to train children to achieve some kind of outward show of absolute obedience. It ought to be spiritual discipline to aim at a child's sanctification. That is what it means to nurture them in the Lord: they are like little olive plants that are weak and need to be carefully and lovingly nurtured (sometimes pruned) to become strong (Psalm 128:3). Not to tear them down, but to build them up. If it is to be spiritual then it must necessarily come with the Word of God - otherwise it is worthless because all our growth in grace comes by the word, and there is no edification without understanding (I Cor. 14:9ff), therefore the child must be taught to understand the Word of God. Also since the goal is the sanctification of the child, that means that children may only be chastened for sin (not for accidents, mistakes, weakness, etc), and the chastening must be appropriate and proportionate to the sin.

God's Fatherhood of us is our model. That God wills us always to be assured of our salvation (Rom. 8:15-16; Gal. 4:57; etc), teaches us that we too must always assure our children of our love for them, especially as we seek their salvation, to lead them away from sin and temptation, to lead them with us to Christ for forgiveness daily, and this means too that since it is sinful for them to disobey us, we ought not make the temptation more difficult for them by laying down burdensome and overbearing commandments on them. Instead we need to be gentle, knowing that they are weak vessels like us, yet even weaker. And unless we know in ourselves our own weakness as deeply as we ought, we will not be as gracious with our children as we ought to be. Who is sufficient for the heavy responsibility to be a father to one these little citizen's of Christ's kingdom. Considering the task, I would despair except that I trust that if God has entrusted one of His beloved elect to my care, then He will also work by His grace in me as an instrument in His hand for their benefit - because I know that God works all things for the good of His elect. 

By the way, I don't believe in presumptive regeneration. But I'm not a Baptist either, so I don't believe in presumptive un-regeneration. I believe we ought to view and treat all the children of believing parents as everyone else in the church; elect and beloved, etc (even though we know that just as there will be hypocrites among confessing adults, there will be reprobates among the children - in other words, that is not a sufficient reason biblically to view either an adult or a child in the church uncharitably). 

A friend directed me to this review. I want to highlight a very important that Rachel Miller makes in that review article - children have emotional needs. In fact, if I have learnt anything as a parent, it is that we can never know exactly what the reason for a child's crying might be. They might be crying because they are hungry, or thirsty, or too cold, or too warm, or a bit sick, or a bit uncomfortable, or because they want someone to talk to them, or to be with them, or to hold them. It is very likely that they themselves very often don't know what they are crying about, and maybe often they just feel a need to cry for no real reason other than that. And whatever the reason may be, even if they do not know themselves, unless they can tell us, then we cannot know.

But are we not the same? Do we not sometimes feel like we don't know what is wrong, and just want to cry to our heavenly Father? He is always ready and willing to hear our cries, no matter how often or how loud and fervent they might be. To bring our cries before God is not at all the same as murmuring and complaining against Him and His good providence - His fatherly kindness. It is an act of worship when we bring our cries before Him, because in doing so we confess that He alone is the one who always hears us and ultimately from whom all our comfort comes no matter what may be the reason for our cries. I don't have a lot of experience as a parent (one year today), but I guess that one of the richest experiences of any parent is when a child seeks their comfort from you, and I believe that God, who comforts us so that we can comfort others, works through us parents to comfort His children.

Ultimately our cries to God are a manifestation of this: "And not only they [the brute creation], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23). And in this is our comfort; the Spirit expresses far more deeply to God what cannot express rightly (because of our sin, and more simply our weakness, and limited nature): "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Rom. 8:26-28). And since Christ knows the mind of His own Spirit dwelling in us, so He knows exactly how to intercede for us. And so we have the knowledge that everything is worked out by God for our good, because of His eternal love for us in Christ.

We will continue to offer up cries to God until our final redemption at the coming of the new age, and then there will be no more crying and our Father will have wiped away every tear from our eyes: "And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." (Rev. 21:3-4).

Isn't this the kind of fatherhood that we ought to try to emulate: to wipe away the tears of our children, by giving them the comfort of us being with them, and them with us?

To presume that their crying is some kind of sophisticated sinful manipulation is not only absurd (from the point of view that even though their fallen human nature is utterly depraved, its expression is nevertheless restricted by their lack of development in strength, intelligence, etc), but also, and more importantly it is fundamentally uncharitable, and therefore un-Christian. It comes from a radically wrong mindset. Christian love demands this: "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth..." (I Cor. 13:4-8). If we would desire that people be charitable with us in all our weaknesses, should we not be charitable to others - especially our own children? If we do not provide a living example of Christian love to our children, they will not learn it from us.

And even if it was only ever sinful crying, that would not change our responsibility as parents. We may never accuse another (whether our children or otherwise) of lying when we do not really know. The unregenerate wicked only ever sin, and yet they often speak truthfully in their sinning if it will get them want they want. Yet as Christians, we may not even presume that our children are unregenerate. I would guess in the theology of the Pearls however, they do presume this. And they propose a very different unbiblical way of the salvation of infants and children - salvation by physical discipline through the efforts of parents, rather than by grace through faith in Christ.

Externally in the covenant? External blessings?

Galatians 3:16-17 makes it very plain that only the seed in Christ are members of the covenant (and in Christ the promise is sure to all the seed; cf. Romans 4:16). Romans 9:6-16 makes it very clear therefore that Esau was not a member of the covenant at all. And he did not simply receive "lesser non-saving blessings", but rather, God hated and reprobated him with all his descendents (Mal. 1:2-5).

To all the reprobate sons of Abraham, all those so close to the covenant while despising and profaning it, Scripture says: "the rest were blinded. (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway." (Rom. 11:7-10) Were these things blessings?
Or consider those Jews who heard the preaching of Christ Himself, in whose cities great miracles were performed, "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." (Matt. 11:21-26) Were the preaching and the miracles then blessings to these impenitent men?

Read how Scripture describes what you call benefits: "[it is impossible ...] If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned." (Heb. 6:6-8) I ask you then, is the water that falls on the ground which produces thorns and briers by it, a blessing to it? The word "But" contradicts that silliness.

How close was Judas to the covenant, how intimately did he relate to Jesus and the disciples? Yet did he receive any benefit thereby? No, otherwise Christ could not say of him, "it had been good for that man if he had not been born" (Matt. 26:24).

And sure Saul and Caiaphas and Balaam all prophesied by spiritual gifts, but were these good gifts blessings to them?

There is no blessing outside Christ, because the word of the law is this, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal. 3:10). They lie under the curse of God, with the whole wicked world, against which God's wrath is revealed from heaven (Rom. 1:18). As Christ said, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36).

God loves the kosmos

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16

Please read your Bible correctly - this love is the love of God expressed in Him giving the greatest possible gift, the gift of His only begotten Son. Is this describing a lesser universal love? Does He have a greater love than this for the elect? Not only so, but the verse says "so", meaning "in this way" - this way God loved the "kosmos", that He gave His Son for the salvation of all who believe (that is, His sheep, those given by the Father, the elect).

Secondly, the very context: spoken at night in secret, to just one person. But significantly spoken to a Jew still thinking in Old Testament terms who thought the love of God was restricted to the Jews. Christ shows that God loves the whole world, every tongue, tribe, and nation, and so gave His Son for the salvation of all who believe. Not the descendants of Abraham therefore, and not merely the believing descendents of Abraham.

Thirdly, there is not one place in Scripture where "world" can be shown to mean "every single person throughout all history". In almost cases it very obviously cannot mean this: http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/allmeansall.htm

Fourthly, where therefore does your definition of "world" come from? Is it from the context? Is it from the use of the word elsewhere in Scripture? Or is it simply your reading into the text your own pre-conceived ideas (or someone else's)?

Furthermore, in ransoming the elect, God saves the kosmos. By preserving a remnant saved from every tongue, tribe, and nation, God saves the entire world (Rev. 5:9). Did God need to save every animal and every human to save the kosmos through the Flood of Noah? No, rather, the destruction of the wicked was necessary for the salvation of the world.

Concerning the salvation of the kosmos, which God loves (the salvation of which rests on the salvation of the elect) the Scriptures say this:

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." Romans 8:18-23.

The whole creation is included in God's everlasting covenant of grace:

"And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth." - Gen. 9:12-17.

The inheritance of the saints, is the new heavens and the new earth, renewed by God, as we are being, and will be - through fire. This kosmos was created for man to dwell in fellowship with God. But through the work and person of Christ, heaven and earth are united, and we who have borne the image of the earthy shall also bear the image of the heavenly, being equipped in the resurrection with a spiritual body by the last Adam: so that then the tabernacle of God will be with men, the final fulfillment and goal of the covenant will be realised and enjoyed forever.

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful." - Rev. 21:1-5.

See the problem is, people know sound-bites and superficial verses without understanding context, and without learning how the Bible fits together in glorious theology. And so they exude this confidence in their views, which doesn't stand contextual, theological scrutiny.

Our first principle must be that Scripture alone interprets Scripture, because it is God's Word, not ours. We must not let our own ideas run ahead.

Navigating between the false views on baptism

God specifically tells us that not all the children even of believers are elect (let alone regenerate/believing), therefore Scripture provides no warrant for presuming election, regeneration, or faith in the children of believers. And the sign of baptism may not be administered on this presumptive speculative basis.

However, the Baptist goes to the other extreme of presuming that all infants are unregenerate, and ignoring the promise of God that He elects from the children of believers. The sign of baptism may not be refused on the basis of this presumptive denial that of such [the children of believers] is the kingdom of heaven.

Rather, as in the Old Testament, the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith (the faith that is produced in us by regeneration, so that we are spiritually washed) is given on the basis of the promise of God to us and our children, since His promises are given to the children of the church no less than to the adults (since not all the adults who call themselves Israel, or believers, or church are regenerate). But God deals with His people, His church, as an organic whole. Sure there is chaff, there are tares among the wheat, but it is still addressed as a wheat-field. We do not presume the salvation of the adult professors, but we treat all the members of the church as God's people, no less the children. Always His covenant has been established and maintained in the line of continued generations, and the sign has reflected that:

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever." - Isaiah 59:21.

According to the new covenant (the old fulfilled in Christ), the sign must change to suit the differences in the New Testament age - because if new wine is placed in old wineskins, they will be ruined. Rather it is placed in new wineskins. So that in everything the new covenant is BETTER (the keyword of Hebrews). The sign of water baptism is better than circumcision, because it puts no difference between Jew or Gentile (seeing that this new age is characterised by the salvation of the ends of earth, every tongue, tribe, and nation). It is better because it is not bloody (seeing that Christ by His blood has put an end to the shedding of blood for sins). It is better because it can be applied alike to both male and female, old and young.

The new covenant would not be better if suddenly children were to be excluded. If there had been some strange new doctrine, that the children of believers were now to be excluded from the sign of the covenant, there would certainly be something in the New Testament to explain such an outrageous change. Rather, the New Testament is filled with confirmation that God's promise of salvation is still to elect believers and their children, but explained more fully and explicitly (especially in Romans 9), is that this promise was never to all the children without exception, but that God's purposes with election and reprobation run through the children of believers.

Review: John MacArthur's Five Arguments Against Infant Baptism

Most baptist arguments are both commonly used, and very poor. They rely on people's ignorance of the Reformed position. John MacArthur's arguments here are representative, and taken from this article: http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-369/is-infant-baptism-biblical#.Tp7nQpsUq30

I've tried to be succinct in my criticism, while providing effective refutations of these very common baptist arguments. John MacArthur's points are listed briefly as headings, and my answers are below. Thanks to a Lutheran (with whom I have strong disagreement), Charles Wiese for directing me to this article. Some of his arguments are also repeated here.

A Short Note on the Anabaptists

I have pointed out where possible the connection with the philosophies and the heritage of the Anabaptists at the time of the Reformation. This was a group which became infamous for being violent revolutionaries, hyper-spirituality, and even trying to set up a millenial kingdom of God on earth. An extreme example would be the city of Muenster which was taken in an Anabaptist rebellion. Jan Mattys, a self-styled prophet, called it “New Jerusalem.” His successor, John of Leiden, became notorious for polygamy and abuse of communism, before the city was captured and the rebels tortured and executed gruesomely. They were sometimes called the Radical Reformation, but not all the Anabaptists were as radical as this. Nevertheless, they formed a third separate group in distinction from the Reformers and the Romanists at the Reformation. They rejected Rome, and yet also claimed that the Reformers didn't go far enough. Today, this threefold distinction is still clearly seen, and readers must consider with which group they must be identified, to be in communion with the true church of the past.

Their commonly held views included refusing to submit to civil government in favour of setting up an alternative theocracy via rebellion (or alternatively, strict pacifism), refusing to take oaths, communion of goods, denial of personal property, direct revelations via prophecy, a future millenial kingdom, and of course, re-baptising converts to their religion. They did this because they judged the baptism of other churches as false and worthless. For these reasons, they were greatly persecuted as a dangerous, violent, and divisive sect. Many Baptists today deny their connection with these more radical groups, but really it is the theological heritage of their position, and their philosophy is closer, especially among Pentecostals (who are almost without exception Baptists), than they would like to admit.

Introduction: Infant Baptism Was Introduced in the Fourth Century

This was the same claim made by the Anabaptists. It's wrong. Today, many baptist groups are still trying to rewrite history to support their position, even trying to paint a rosier picture of the Anabaptist movement. Actually the historical defence is so painfully absent for the Anabaptist position that many resorted to a theology of restorationism. In contrast to successionism (the idea that there were always those who denied infant baptism), this view is that the gates of hell did actually prevail against the church for many years until God restored the church through the super-spiritual Anabaptists. This is much like the Mormon view of church history invented by Joseph Smith who claimed to be an apostle. MacArthur later concedes further to say that infant baptism "started appearing in the second and third century." While this view of church history could be effectively shown as totally false, the authority is Holy Scripture, not differing views of history.

1. Infant Baptism Is Not in Scripture

The Lord's Supper being administered to women is not in Scripture either, yet we all practice this. This shows that it is indeed legitimate to study scriptural principles by which it can be deduced. The baptists cannot fault us for doing this to prove infant baptism. We do not need to give baptists one single verse that proves it. This is a wrong view of Scripture and logic. This kind of argument, which downplays the use of deduction by “good and necessary consequence,” was the same philosophy of the Anabaptists. The baptist confession that is closest to the Reformed faith, is the London Baptist Confession of 1689 (LBCF) which is mostly the same as the Westminster Confession (WCF) of the Presbyterians. In WCF 1:6, the authority of that which “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” is asserted. This statement is absent from the LBCF!

a. The Reformers Didn't Jettison Infant Baptism out of Fear of Persecution

Baptists claim the Reformers didn't go far enough because they were afraid of Rome. Unless they can answer the following question, they need to drop this argument. Why would they compromise on this issue, when justification by faith alone was already more than enough to have them burnt?

b. Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, and Luke 18:16 Only Mean That God Has a Special Care for Children.

Luke says specifically that infants were carried by their parents, and that Christ blessed them. If Christ blesses someone, and all authority on heaven and earth belongs to him, surely they cannot be cursed, and are therefore saved. He also told his disciples, “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” If these infants brought to Christ are actually citizens of the kingdom of heaven, how can we refuse them baptism? One cannot be a citizen of this spiritual kingdom and not be a member of the church. Therefore citizenship in the kingdom, just as much as membership in the church, is symbolised in baptism.

What does "a special care for children" even mean? If anything, Baptist theology teaches that God has a special care for adults. Besides, if all children were equally precious to God, how does he explain the slaughter of the Canaanite men, women, and children, the slaughter of the Amalekites, or the dashing of Babylon's little ones against the rocks in Psalm 137?

c. All members of the households that were baptised all believed first.

Yet before Paul even met the Philippian jailor's household, he told him, "Believe and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Surely this meant that if he believed, his household would also be saved? We know it did not necessarily mean that there will be no reprobates in his house, as Rom. 9:6-8 explains. Scripture simply doesn't say that they all believed first in any of the examples of household baptisms. Nor does it ever say there were no infants. This is unlikely notion is forced on into the text by baptists. Admittedly it doesn't say explicitly that there were, which is why we would prefer to use stronger arguments. Even so, the only examples of specific baptisms in which households were not also baptised, are Christ, the eunuch who was a eunuch, and Paul who was single.

2. Infant Baptism Is Not New Testament Baptism.

This would mean that all Reformed and Presbyterian churches are full of people who have never been baptised. This position is not simply baptist, it is Anabaptist, because it means we all need to be re-baptised.

a. Baptise Means Immerse.

What about I Cor. 10:1-2? Who was immersed at the Red Sea, the children of Israel (which definitely included infants!), or wicked Pharoah and his armies? What would “immersed unto Moses” even mean? Many more examples could be given which demonstrate a use of “baptise” which cannot mean “immerse.” Consider also why the translators went to the trouble of inventing a new English word “baptise,” if using the word immerse would have been sufficient. We hold that to baptise something indicates a change being made to something by means of contact with something else. Most generally the idea of washing seems to be intended, as being a very basic change from dirty to clean by use of water. The word has also been used to describe dyeing clothes a different colour, a person becoming drunk with wine, or in the example above, the children of Israel all taught under the ministry of Moses.

b. Baptism Is a Picture of Union With Christ in His Death, Burial and Resurrection.

How does submerging symbolise Christ's death of being nailed to the cross? How does full immersion symbolise Christ's burial in a tomb above ground by a stone rolled in front of the cave? How does emersion (lifted out of the water) symbolise Christ's resurrection? The picture ought fit the reality. And if baptism means immersion, how can emersion be part of the symbolism and their practice? And even if it was meant to symbolise modern burial practices, why use water instead of soil, dirt, and earth? In the baptist picture, there's no logical basis for using water. Their error comes from thinking that Romans 6 is speaking about the sacrament. It's not. Even so, it doesn't speak about immersion. It's speaking about the further implications of the reality of being united to Christ which it calls baptism in Christ, and describes as being “planted.” If it was speaking about the mode of the sacrament, then planting would be appropriate picture.

Baptism is union with Christ; spiritual baptism, not water baptism. There is no water in Romans 6. Water baptism pictures spiritual baptism; the washing of regeneration which saves us (I Peter 3:20-21; Titus 3:5). By this we are united to Christ, and therefore united also in His life, suffering, death, burial, resurrection, and even with His session at the right hand of God in heaven (Eph. 2:6). Since it symbolises spiritual washing from sin, water used for washing is most appropriate. And since Scripture speaks of this reality never as immersion, but as being sprinkled with the blood of Christ, and having the Holy Spirit poured on us, then sprinkling or pouring are the most appropriate methods.

c. Infants Can't Have Faith.

Instead of considering Scripture, the baptists resort to rationalism, scoffing at the very idea of infants having faith. Yet Scripture even speaks of infants not only having faith, but exercising it! Consider John the Baptist who leaps for joy in the presence of Christ (Luke 1:15, 41, 44), Jeremiah who was sanctified before birth (Jer. 1:5), David who was made to hope when a suckling (Psalm 22:9), or even Christ. These are not unique examples; God is indeed praised by babes and sucklings (Psalm 8:2), and Christ refers to this in order to rebuke the Pharisees for complaining at the praise of young children (Matt. 21:16).

3. Infant Baptism Is Not a Replacement for Circumcision.

In contrast, Colossians 2:11-12 identifies baptism with circumcision.

a. Circumcision Was Just a Sign of Ethnic Identity.

Romans 4:11 calls circumcision a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith. Isn't this also what the sign of baptism is? Yet, John MacArthur claims that circumcision has nothing to do with symbolising salvation. He is a dispensationalist who believes (like many Anabaptist did), in a future millenial kingdom, specifically for the ethnic Jews. If it does mean ethnic identity in addition, this means the circumcised are to be counted as the children of Abraham. In fact, one cannot be counted as a child of Abraham without the sign of the covenant. Remember that this is an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:7-11). We see in the New Testament that Abraham is called the father of the faithful (Rom. 4:11-14). Gentile Christians are called true Jews (Rom. 2:27-28), and children of Abraham (Gal. 3:7).

This is explained to mean that through faith, not through the law, we are the recipients of all the promises and blessings of God in Christ, Abraham's seed (Gal. 3:8-29). The gospel of the justification of the heathen was preached to Abraham when he was told that all nations would be blessed through him. It is through faith in the promise that we receive the inheritance promised to Abraham and his seed, because the covenant of God is everlasting and unconditional, and therefore cannot be disannulled. This is because the covenant is with Christ, the promised seed of Abraham, who is also the only Mediator of the covenant, and we, with Abraham and all who believe, are in Him. Notice also, that this means we are the proper recipients of the inheritance promised to Abraham, described to him as the land of Canaan to given as an “everlasting possession.” Romans 4:13 explains that this meant that Abraham, with us, would be heir of the world. Since baptism signifies then that we are Christians through faith, that is, the true children of Abraham, it has exactly the same meaning and function as circumcision did. And if circumcision could legitimately be applied to children (indeed it had to be!), then baptism can be too. In fact, when one considers that it is the sign of the covenant with us and our children, it must be!

b. People Believe Infant Baptism Saves Them

Many have wrong superstitions about the Lord's Supper too. The consistent Reformed view is that just like the preaching, the sacraments are only of benefit to the elect through faith.

c. Presumptive Regeneration and the Federal Vision Are Wrong.

MacArthur is right to condemn this false doctrines. Nevertheless, God does promise to save our children, not head-for-head, but according to the election of grace (Rom. 9:6-8). Therefore, just as Scripture teaches, we believe in the promised salvation of our children (and therefore promised regeneration, not presumed), even though we also believe and bear in mind that there may be reprobate children of the flesh too. And we believe this not because we have baptised our children, but we baptise them because of this covenant promise of God. The promise of salvation is given just as much to adult believers as to their children (Acts 2:39), though we know that there may be reprobates among the children of the flesh, just as much as there may be hypocrites among the adults. The promise is to the elect, whom God draws unto Himself.

Yet, we cannot differentiate between the wheat and tares (Matt. 13:29). In time the reprobate may manifest themselves by their wickedness, and be put under discipline and eventually excommunicated, yet others remain hidden hypocrites, and still others who are elect may be excommunicated and later brought to repentance (I Cor. 5:1-8; II Cor. 2:6-8). This doesn't make us lazy in bringing up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4), but rather gives us confidence that it's not all in vain!

4. Infant Baptism Destroys the Nature of the Church.

Another old Anabaptist belief was the idea of a pure church with only regenerate membership. This also shows that they really exclude in every sense their children from the church and kingdom of Christ, since they deny that an infant can be regenerate. But Christ said, "of such is the kingdom of God," and, "Forbid them not to come unto me" (Mark 10:14). He was not simply referring to the infants who were not even able to come of themselves, but to the parents who had to carry the babes in their arms! This false belief about the church also means that Reformed and Presbyterian churches are not true churches at all.

Their inconsistency is that baptised adults can be unregenerate, hypocrites, and apostatise, just as much as those who were baptised as infants. Their idea of the reality of a regenerate church is never a reality. In a great house, there are vessels present for different purposes; some noble, others ignoble (II Tim. 2:18-20). There are always tares among the wheat. While the Reformed recognise that God has a purpose with hidden tares in the church, the baptists try to root out the tares and in doing so root out the wheat (Matt. 13:29, 38). The Reformed recognise that the goal of church discipline is not to rigorously try to root out all the reprobate, but to seek the holiness of each member. The baptist will point out that Christ said that “the field is the world,” as if this meant that the tares in the world are not also present in the church. Since the wheat is also in the world, we cannot imagine that Christ meant that there are no tares in the church. This would completely overturn his presentation of the tares being mixed among the wheat, and the difficulty in discerning the difference between the two until harvest time. The church most certainly is in the world (but not of the world; John 17:11, 14-16), and therefore the tares sown in the world will be found in the church also. This is the reality in baptist churches too. If Christ commands the very angels not to try to uproot the tares before the final judgment, in case they uproot the wheat, how much more should the baptists heed this command?

Historically the Anabaptists have been guilty of world-flight, thinking that the key to holiness lies in a physical, even geographical separation of the church from the world. Even if it were possible to flee the reprobate entirely, we still bring the wicked world with us in our old sinful nature. Instead God has a purpose with close contact of the elect and reprobate, even placing reprobate children, like Esau, in covenant homes, amidst elect children. God wills for them to be hardened in the church, and for the elect to be tested by them for their sanctification. We could deduce many more reasons also.

5. Infant Baptism Is Not Consistent With Reformed Soteriology

This claim is very short-sighted. Doesn't the sprinkling of water on a helpless baby who does nothing far better illustrate that God is the one alone who saves us by the sprinkling of the blood and Spirit of Christ, entirely of grace, according to His unconditional election, before we have done any works whatsoever? Since the Reformed believe in infant salvation, it would be totally inappropriate if we did not baptise infants. The baptist complains that not all the babies are saved. Yet Isaac was commanded to circumcise reprobate Esau even though he would not be saved, as a sign of God's everlasting covenant with us and our elect children. Not all baptised adults are saved either. Does this nullify the symbolism of baptism, and its benefit to the elect through faith? And how can the claim be made that God has a special care for children when the claim is also made that they are not regenerate, not members of the church, and cannot have faith!

While the baptism of infants illustrates the sovereignty of God in salvation, as well as the covenant of God maintained from generation to generation, the baptist practice does not correctly symbolise the work of regeneration, or God's sovereignty in it, and certainly doesn't show anything about God's covenant with us and our children. The focus in immersion is entirely on the person going under and coming up, doing all the action, while the water does nothing. It is actually re-baptism that nullifies what baptism is supposed to signify. I grant that from their faulty perspective, this is not what they think they are doing, but if infant baptism is valid (as we have seen), then they are actually re-baptising.

The Children of Believers are Holy

"Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy [I Cor. 7:14], not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." - Canons (I) A17.

Inquirer: "Is this passage saying that children of the elect are also automatically elect or just that Godly parents will raise their children in such a way as that they also believe?"

Dear Inquirer,

In answer to your question, the verse we are considering is I Cor. 7:14. You asked whether this speaks of the children of the elect being "automatically elect" or just that godly parents raise their children so that they believe. What is the correct interpretation here?

I'll quote the verse:

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." - 1Co 7:14.

The immediate context is where Paul is answering some of the questions posed to him by a young predominantly Gentile church in Corinth, which was notorious even among the heathen for its rampant and particularly debauched and depraved fornication (they even coined the term, "to Corinthianize," meaning to fornicate). The situation was that some believers in the Corinthian church had been converted from heathendom, while their spouses had not been converted and remained unbelieving.

They had received the essential instruction not to have fellowship with unbelievers because they would be corrupted by such ungodly fellowship (which Paul refers to in I Cor. 5:9, and reiterates throughout that same chapter concerning their failure to discipline and excommunicate a man who was fornicating with his step-mother, and which he also reiterates in I Cor. 10:20; 15:33, and in the second letter to them; II Cor. 6:14-18). They already knew of his warnings not to have fellowship with unbelievers, and so it was natural for them, in godly concern, to ask him concerning their marriages with unbelievers, since ordinarily a marriage involves the greatest measure of fellowship (obviously the implication first of all, was that they should only marry in Lord--as Paul clarifies in verse 39--but here Paul considers the case of those who have been converted while their spouse has not been).

Their concern is that in this close fellowship of marriage, that they will be corrupted by their spouse, and they wonder if it is the will of God for them to divorce their unbelieving spouse. This was especially urgent because it was not a case that the Lord Jesus specifically addressed in his earthly ministry (or at least it is not recorded for us in the Gospels). Firstly, Paul reiterates Christ's command concerning divorce ("unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord" - v. 10), even though He did not specifically refer to this situation. This is helpful, because it teaches us to simply obey Christ, no matter how much we imagine our own situation to be a "special case". They must not leave their spouse, and if they do (for whatever reason, whether sinfully, or on account of fornication which is the only lawful ground for divorce), they must nevertheless remain unmarried or be reconciled to their spouse (v. 10, 11). Remarriage is forbidden because marriage is an unbreakable life-long bond. Even after divorce (whether lawful or not), it is only if the spouse dies that they are free to marry again--otherwise they are committing adultery, according to what Christ has clearly taught as recorded in the Gospels.

Secondly, he treats their specific situation. He teaches them not to divorce their unbelieving spouses (v.12, 13). And he gives to them comfort to assay their fears in this situation based upon authoritative apostolic doctrine, which he proves based upon what they know about their children (v.14). This is what we need to examine in more detail.

Thirdly, he explains to them what their calling is if the unbelieving spouse is not content to dwell with them, but deserts them (v. 15). In this case, they may allow their spouse to leave. They are not required to go after them according to the requirements of their marriage, e.g., the responsibility to dwell with their spouse and give them "due benevolence" (v. 3, 5; Gen. 2:24; I Pet. 3:7; etc). According to Paul's apostolic authority, the deserted believer "is not under bondage in such cases". He does not say that the deserted believer "is not bound" any longer to their spouse, but rather that they are not "under bondage" (these are completely different words and concepts in the Greek). Bondage refers to slavery, not the unbreakable life-long union of marriage. It refers to the terrible hardship that they would have if they had to go after such an ungodly spouse. Instead, "God hath called [them] to peace". He does not even suggest in any sense that the marriage bond is broken, but merely that they may in a good peaceful conscience allow the unbeliever to depart. And he certainly does not suggest anything either about remarriage. The command of the Lord that he just mentioned is very plain here: "if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband". There cannot be remarriage while the spouse is still living--not only because marriage is a life-long bond, but also because this would destroy any possibility of reconciliation. God hates divorce (Mal. 2:14-16), and allows it only on the ground of fornication--but even in this remarriage is absolutely forbidden and clearly repeatedly declared to be adultery (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18; Rom. 7:2, 3).

Finally, he gives them hope concerning their unbelieving spouse, that they don't know whether or not God may yet save them, and even use their witness in bringing their spouse to conversion (v. 16; I Pet. 3:1, 2).

But what exactly is the comfort for those who must dwell with unbelievers who are enemies of God and His Christ? Will believers not be utterly corrupted and destroyed by such a close relationship with such profane and ungodly people? Paul answers no, "for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband". This doesn't mean that they are saved, because they are nevertheless "unbelieving," and this is also why the term "sanctified" is not qualified as "sanctified in Christ", as Paul addresses the Corinthian church at the beginning of the letter (I Cor. 1:2). In fact, this verse is the only place in the entire New Testament that this particular form of the Greek word translated here "sanctified" is used: ηγιασται. From the context, and considering that the husband or wife are nevertheless "unbelieving" we must understand it not to refer them being personally holy by union with Jesus Christ as if they have received the Holy Spirit and are also cleansed by His blood. Rather it can only refer to them being set apart in such a way that the believing spouse is not corrupted by their wickedness in the marriage, this is the sense in which they are "sanctified", on account of, and for the sake of, the believing spouse. Therefore the believer need not be concerned, because God sanctifies their unbelieving spouse, for their sakes to keep them from their uncleanness (even though He does not save them). Needless to say, every other instance of the forms of the Greek word upon which this word is based, always refers to true spiritual holiness, in devotion to God in Christ, washed in His blood and filled by His Spirit. Only because here it qualifies them as "unbelieving" (and later adds the question "what knowest thou, o wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?") can we conclude (and we must conclude), that it does not refer to this true holiness with respect to God.

But in order that this doctrine may be of great comfort to those in such situations, Paul grounds it and proves it to them based upon something even more incontrovertible and obvious: "else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

Their children are holy. This is a word that is frequently used in the New Testament, and when used in reference to people, it always only refers to them being actually saved, washed in Christ's blood and Spirit. It is a true inner holiness, according to which the heart (and thereby the whole person) is consecrated unto God in loving fellowship with Him and in truly willing obedience. Along with this, it is also a true spiritual separation from the world and the devil, and every corruption. God makes His people holy, and therefore calls us "saints", which means "holy [ones]". In the same sense therefore that all God's graciously elect people are holy, the children referred to in this verse are "holy". It is very important that we first understand exactly and are entirely convinced about what this holiness is, before I answer your specific questions. In this verse, he is not merely saying "your children are elect," or "your children will be saved," or "your children belong to Christ." He is saying that they are being saved right now, they are "holy", they have been born again (are regenerate) since they have the Holy Spirit without which they cannot be holy, they are united with Christ the Holy One, they are now in holy fellowship with the Holy God, they are no longer unclean, but seperate from the world, they have been effectually called out of darkness into this holy light, and are necessarily members of Christ's holy church and His holy covenant, along with all His saints (i.e., His "holy ones").

But I hear your objection, and where your question is coming from. What about those children of believers who grow up and manifest themselves to be wicked unbelievers, hypocrites, and thoroughly reprobate, self-condemned, and are in the end damned to hell, to which dreadful end they were appointed? We need to be careful not to misunderstand Paul's language here. When he addresses the Corinthian church at the beginning of the letter, as "sanctified in Christ Jesus" and "saints," he was not denying there were no doubt hypocrites in their congregation. In fact he says as much in I Cor. 11:17-19, and urges them to purge out the old leaven of wicked unconverted members in chapter 5. Likewise when he refers to the children as "holy," he is not saying that every single child is necessarily holy. It is understood that there will no doubt be some exceptions, some reprobates among the children of God--just as there are tares in a wheat field. But we still call it a wheat field, and say that it is a field of wheat, and that we are growing wheat in that field, and this is the purpose of the field. If asked specifically, we certainly admit that there may be some tares in there among the wheat, but we view the field according to the wheat, not according to the tares, and we treat the field according to the wheat, not according to the possible presence of tares. And the tares and the wheat must grow up together and first bear fruit before any can be uprooted. This is the principle taught in the parable of the wheat field as Christ is explaining the kingdom of God. Since Christ is teaching the parable in order to explain the kingdom of God, He is speaking primarily about the church, and it is therefore entirely proper that the same principle applies to children in the church. This priniciple is also spoken of in II Tim. 2:19-21, explaining to a young pastor how it can be that those who seem to have been faithful members of the church can so suddenly manifest themselves to be rotten heretics and wolves seeking to destroy the church.

And this is not simply inference (though that would be enough, even if slightly less clear immediately), rather it is the clear and specific teaching of Scripture especially in Romans 9. Here the apostle Paul meets this very question head on, and explains it most fully. After explaining the glorious Gospel truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone without works, and salvation for totally depraved sinners entirely by the sovereign grace of God by which He works all things for the good of His beloved elect (Rom. 8:28ff), Paul turns to answer some objections. What about the Jews? If what you're saying is true, that salvation is by grace alone and Christ has fully accomplished our redemption by Himself in His atoning substitutionary death on the cross paying for all our sins, how is it that so many Jews who were first of all promised this salvation in father Abraham, do not believe in Christ, and remain unconverted? He answers that his heart is heavy for them, and that he could even wish if it were possible, that he could be cut off from Christ (that is damned eternally), for their sakes, that they might be received in Christ. But he knows this is impossible. And he begins his answer, not by saying that God's promise has failed, or that salvation does not rely solely upon God's promise, but upon their free will or other works, or by denying the Old Testament which records the promises made to them, or by saying that the promises made to the Jews were merely earthly and carnal rather than spiritual; but rather, he asserts the Old Testament and all the things given to them, including the promises, and proclaims that it is not that God's word to them has failed.

This leads us to be all the more flabbergasted! How so, Paul? Can't you see the direct contradiction here?! But he answers:

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." - Rom 9:6-8.

And he goes on to give concrete examples, of Isaac, and especially of Jacob and Esau (v. 9-13). According to God's sovereign election, He does maintain His covenant with us and our children, and truly saves our children, but he does not save every single one, because there are those who are merely children of the flesh, who are merely "of Israel", and not truly "Israel". Not every single child of believing parents is actually in the everlasting unconditional covenant of grace which was first declared in Paradise (Gen. 3:15), and revealed again to Noah (Gen. 9:8-9), and also to Abraham (Gen. 17:7), and which God has confirmed by Jesus Christ. Abraham is especially important, because he is considered the father of the Jewish people, and the New Testament explains that he is the father of the faithful, and it was especially to him, that God revealed His promise to save the Gentiles in Christ. The New Testament is very clear about this (Gal. 3:6-9). So the promises made to Abraham are exactly the promises made to every one who believes in Jesus Christ who is united to Him by true faith, that living spiritual bond worked in us by the Spirit of God. And God promises, "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." - Gen. 17:7.

So, as it was with the children of true believers in the Old Testament, so it is in the New Testament. God's covenant is with us and our seed "in their generations for an everlasting covenant." And it consists in this, "to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee". He is our God, and the God of our children in their generations. As Paul also teaches in Rom. 11:16, "For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches." This is why Abraham was required to administer the sign of circumcision, and why Moses was nearly killed by God for not giving the sign of the covenant to his child. And this is why the children of believers are baptised, not because we believe that God saves every single child, but because we believe in His covenant of grace with us and our children according to election.

And this is why it was so obvious to the Corinthians that their children were not unclean, but holy--because baptism is a sign and seal of our cleansing from sin by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ. The whole idea of baptism is seen in that it involves water, and therefore it symbolises washing, not physical washing, but spiritual (I Pet. 3:21). Not that their children were made holy by the outward sign of baptism (which the reprobate and hypocrites also receive, yet only to their condemnation), but rather, they were baptised because they were already holy. They must receive the sign which corresponds to the reality which they have already received. Our children are not made holy by receiving baptism; they receive baptism because they are holy, as this verse (I Cor. 7:14) tells us most plainly and clearly. They do not become members of Christ's church and covenant by baptism, rather, they receive baptism because they are already members. That there may be reprobate among them according to the purpose of God makes no difference, in as much as it makes no difference that there may be hypocrites among adult who profess faith. Esau had to be circumcised, even though his parents were told he was reprobate, and even the apostles themselves occasionally baptised hypocrites, such as Simon Magus. Again, we treat the wheat field according to the wheat, not according to the possible presence of tares. In that the Corinthians knew that their children were baptised according to God's gracious covenant and were holy not by nature (since we are all born by nature totally depraved and dead in trespasses and sins, cf. Eph. 2:1-5; Rom. 3:10-18; 8:7-8), but by virtue of His everlasting unconditional covenant with us and our children in Christ; they knew that their children were not unclean but holy, and therefore their spouse was certainly sanctified to them in the sense that they would not be corrupted by this close fellowship with an unbeliever, in as much as their children were not polluted either.

The other alternative interpretation which you offer for this text is quite impossible. A totally depraved sinner cannot be brought to faith in Christ simply by the faithful nurture and instruction of parents. Regeneration is a sovereign work of God's grace (John 3:3-8). God uses such faithful nurture and instruction of parents for the good of His children (and casts away children in the way of the unfaithfulness of parents; Hos. 4:6), but such instruction cannot be of any value to one who is unregenerate. In fact, that God promises to use the faithful instruction of parents for the good of His children is further proof to us that in general, our children are regenerate from infancy (apart from the possible exception of those who are perhaps regenerated much later in life, but even then there is no proof that they were not regenerate at all earlier, and of course in particular the exception of those reprobate who remain unregenerate). If you think it is impossible that a child can be regenerate from infancy, then consider that how early an age David had faith (which is the infallible fruit of regeneration): "thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts." - Psa 22:9. And even more strongly, consider John the Baptist who leaped for joy in his mother's womb when she was in the presence of Christ (Luke 1:41), of whom it says "he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15). Therefore we need not worry if our feeble minds can't comprehend the mysterious and effectual work of God's grace in a baby who is still in her mother's womb, since God's ways are infinitely higher than our ways, and He has given us clear examples in His word of this gracious work.

And so it is when we understand God's everlasting covenant of grace, and therefore the real holiness of our children (with the exception of some reprobate children), we understand why the Canons of Dordt say that godly parents have no reason to doubt the salvation of their children who die in infancy. Indeed we ought not to doubt their salvation, as much as we ought not to doubt the salvation of any member of the church, and perhaps even more so, since such infants have given us no reason to doubt their salvation, whereas we can more easily see the sins of our fellow church members (though even then, and even when they are under discipline, we ought to give them the judgment of charity). And further, the Bible gives no example of any child of a believer who died in infancy who was reprobate, but the pattern with reprobate children in the Bible is always that God allows them to grow up and manifest their wickedness and develop in it (e.g., Cain, or Esau). So, we perhaps have even more confidence in the salvation of the children of godly parents whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy, than the many adult members in the church who perhaps boldly and loudly profess their faith. But we ought not to doubt the salvation of any member.

In Christ,

Sam.