A question for PCA members

[Erinwilcox]

As many of you know, I am a Reformed Baptist. My grandparents attend an OPC church. I am really trying to understand covenant theology. I noticed that on many of your testimonies, you say that you have been saved your whole lives. Could you explain that to me and be willing to answer my questions regarding this issue? As a Baptist, I have always been taught that you repent and believe. Can an infant do that? How does the spiritual status of the parent affect the child in any other way except to provide a spiritually rich environment for them? And why in the NT does it only mention believers being baptized? I realize that you might answer with the verses about "you and your household," but I know too many families where the parents are saved and the kids are definiely NOT. I'm not questioning anybody's salvation, for I know that you are saved (your lives show great fruit), but rather I'm only trying to understand covenant theology. Also, I am not being combative, I am only trying to learn.

 

[Erinwilcox]

Oh, I forgot to mention that I would like only Reformed people to answer this thread.

 

[CCWoody]

As a Baptist, I have always been taught that you repent and believe. Can an infant do that?

Yes. Our human ability is a non-factor in salvation. Even Reformed Baptists believe this. If it was beyond the ability of God to grant repentence and salvation to infants, then what happens to babies that die. Do they go to hell because they are beyond God's ability to save?

How does the spiritual status of the parent affect the child in any other way except to provide a spiritually rich environment for them?

There is a certain expectation as Christian parents that our children will be saved by the Lord. I believe Baptists share this expectation. We would cite Acts 2:39 among the verses for this.

And why in the NT does it only mention believers being baptized? I realize that you might answer with the verses about "you and your household," but I know too many families where the parents are saved and the kids are definiely NOT.

As you ask questions of Presbyterians, make sure you don't force your own Baptistic idea and definitions into they way that they read and understand Scripture. For instance, you have merely presumed that a household being Baptized in the Book of Acts are all believers. In that regard, you might be guilty of presuming as fact that which is not declared in Scriptures.

Of course, I don't know the answer to that. Obviously either the credoBaptists or the paedoBaptists are wrong about such verses.

As far as understanding Covenant Theology, you need to start with understanding that a foundation of this doctrine is the idea that God expresses his relationship and Redemptive plan through various covenants:

the covenant with Adam as representative of man
the covenant with Noah
the covenant with Abraham
the covenant with Moses & Israel
the covenant with Christ, the last Adam, representative of man

 

[Erinwilcox]

Okay, but what about the Christian parents whose children are definitely not saved? And I wasn't trying to force baptistic views on people, I was trying to state my question in such a way as to get a satisfactory answer. I know a little of covenant theology, but those places are where the glitches are. I'd really like to hear a good PCA answer since I've only read the Baptist versions. . . The only answer that I can give you in regards to babies dying in infancy is that the elect ones go to heaven. Here's another glitch. I'm not trying to be combative. So, hear me out. What of a baby, of Christian parents, that dies in infancy. Do they all go to heaven? What if it hadn't died in infancy and had turned out to be the next Hitler or something? Was that baby only elect while it was an infant and then non-elect when it grew up? I know that God's sovereignty played into this so that it did die, but if all babies born to Christian parents died in infancy and went to heaven, then wouldn't it be a mercy to them to kill them while they are young so that they'll go to heaven? Doesn't this kind of get into an age of accountablility thing? Maybe you can help me to understand it better, but these are some of the questions that I have.

 

[CCWoody]

Okay, but what about the Christian parents whose children are definitely not saved?

What about them? Are we to tell God that he has to save our kids by age 8 or somehow our whole expectations fall apart. Each and every single elect one has an appointment with a perfect moment in time for the Lord to reveal his salvation to them.

Aparently for John the Baptist, that was before his physical birth. For me, after being born & baptized as an Episcopal boy, confirmed at age 15, I never really met the Lord in a meaningful way until I was 16. There was a perfect day that the Lord appointed from eternity past for me to receive the salvation of the Lord. There was a perfect instrument that the Lord used. There was a perfect way that the Lord completed that which was missing in the afflictions of Christ.

The only answer that I can give you in regards to babies dying in infancy is that the elect ones go to heaven.

Would you expect a Presbyterian to answer differently?

Here's another glitch. I'm not trying to be combative. So, hear me out. What of a baby, of Christian parents, that dies in infancy. Do they all go to heaven?

I believe that those whom the Father appoints to death as infants he also Elects to Salvation.

What if it hadn't died in infancy and had turned out to be the next Hitler or something?

I think the answer obvious. He wasn't elect to begin with.

Was that baby only elect while it was an infant and then non-elect when it grew up?

No, such a child was never of the Elect to begin with, but was appointed to secure his own Reprobation.

I know that God's sovereignty played into this so that it did die, but if all babies born to Christian parents died in infancy and went to heaven, then wouldn't it be a mercy to them to kill them while they are young so that they'll go to heaven?

Kind of like trying to bypass God's Elections and Reprobations? Do you really think that you could alter God's plans or thwart his will in the matter? BTW, as a follow-up question: Do you really think that a Presbyterian Calvinist would believe that mercy can be had from the hand of man?

Doesn't this kind of get into an age of accountablility thing? Maybe you can help me to understand it better, but these are some of the questions that I have.

Perhaps for an Arminian. We Calvinists or all stripes believe that a person is fully accountable before God from the moment of conception for the Original Sin and for their individual sins.

Your questions really have not uniqueness to Covenant Theology. The credoBaptist is faced with the same delima. What does God do with children that he calls out of this life as infants rather than letting them grow to adults? Spurgeon, a Baptist, preferred the idea that all babies, whether of believing parents or not, were Elected for salvation.

An interesting question would be: How does a Covenant Theology Presbyterian answer the fact that there appear to be some children of believers that grow up and appear to die in their sins?

 

[Erinwilcox]

That last question that you asked was exactly the question that I wanted to ask! And my other question is, do the Presbyterians believe that all of their children are elect? If so, is that why they baptize them? Is there ever a point in time when a PCA parent would agree that their child was not elect? Or, better phrased, do they think that their children are elect/saved from infancy until a time when they prove that they are not saved? And why do some PCA believers say that they have been saved since infancy? Were they saved from the womb or did they repent and believe? Since I know that so many of you here in SR are PCA, I thought that maybe you could help me to understand what you believe on these issues. Thanks for your patience.

 

[CCWoody]

That last question that you asked was exactly the question that I wanted to ask!

Yeah I know. What is even more interesting than that, is why baptize a baby if you don't know that they are going to be saved when they grow up? And, this is why I made the comment about not reading your own expectations into other people's theology. You see, to the paedoBaptist, baptism is not always about the expression of faith that one is baptized into Christ. It is a statement about the covenant and the expectation that a child will grow up reveal himself to be a part of the spiritual kingdom of God.

Besides, the same criticism applies to Baptists: Why baptize a person if you don't know for certain that they are saved?

And my other question is, do the Presbyterians believe that all of their children are elect?

Well, yeah? At least we/ they proceed on the assumption that their kids are elect. Do Baptists think that only some of their children are Elect? I mean, as a father of 4, should I look at my kids and think: "Only 2 of you are God's and the rest of you are Satan's spawn?"

If so, is that why they baptize them?

It is an affirmation of the Covenantal expectation that they are a part of the spiritual seed. See Acts 2:39 for starters.

Is there ever a point in time when a PCA parent would agree that their child was not elect?

I would think not. While there is breath, there is still time to repent and believe. Perhaps, after death, one might reasonably conclude that a child is not among the elect. Of course, the same applies to Baptists.

Or, better phrased, do they think that their children are elect/saved from infancy until a time when they prove that they are not saved?

No, it is an expectation that they are a part of the elect and will be saved at a point in the future. Again, you seem to be reading your own Baptist expectation on baptism on Presbyterian beliefs concerning baptism.

And why do some PCA believers say that they have been saved since infancy?

You would have to ask them. However, some of my friends simply can't recall a day of their life when they didn't have faith in Christ. Perhaps that is what they mean.

Were they saved from the womb or did they repent and believe?

As far as I'm aware, only John was saved from the womb. I'd expect that at some time they repented and believed. Which is not to say that John didn't have a repentent faith from the womb. Remember, God grants repentence. We don't suddenly decide one day that we don't like who we are and will work to get that fixed.

Since I know that so many of you here in SR are PCA, I thought that maybe you could help me to understand what you believe on these issues. Thanks for your patience.

If you consider one who has officially been a member of the PCA for oh, let's see, 5 days to be a "SR" then I'm game.

 

[Erinwilcox]

1. Q -"Besides, the same criticism applies to Baptists: Why baptize a person if you don't know for certain that they are saved?"
1. A. Well, if you're asking a Reformed Baptist, we only baptize those who have a credible profession of faith. While some might be baptized unsaved, it is less likely that someone is unsaved when baptized by RBs.

2. Q-"Well, yeah? At least we/ they proceed on the assumption that their kids are elect. Do Baptists think that only some of their children are Elect? I mean, as a father of 4, should I look at my kids and think: "Only 2 of you are God's and the rest of you are Satan's spawn?"

3. Well, Reformed Baptists hope that their children are elect, but they would never just assume that their kids are elect. Since we don't have this assumption, we fervently pray to God that He would save them. Whenever we pray for a pregnant woman, we ask that God would save her child at a young age, but it is never assumed that the child will just be elect anyway because of its parents. What about King David? He was a believer but look at his family. There is a long list of kings from his line where God says, "And 'xyz' was more wicked than any other before him." What about Absalom? Were all of David's children saved? What about Jacob and Esau-they had believing parents? "Jacob have I loved and Esu have I hated?" What are your thoughts on these verses?

4. Q"-I would think not. While there is breath, there is still time to repent and believe. Perhaps, after death, one might reasonably conclude that a child is not among the elect. Of course, the same applies to Baptists."


4. Of course, the Baptists don't have the presupposition that all of their children will be saved because they are. Not that they would ever claim that their children aren't elect (because, as you said, there is hope while there is breath), but they always continue to pray for their salvation.

5. Q "You would have to ask them. However, some of my friends simply can't recall a day of their life when they didn't have faith in Christ. Perhaps that is what they mean."


5. That sort of sounds like my testimony. However, could a love and/or belief for/in God/Christ be confused with a saving knowledge of Him? Although I'm not sure exactly when God saved me, I do know that I cannot remember a time when I did not love Him or believe in His existance or know that the Bible was His word. But did that make me saved? I don't really think so. I think that God saved me at a later time (not really sure when, but I think that it was later).

6. Here is just another question that I just thought of- The Bible says that God is not a respector of persons in whom He elects and whom he damns. But, from some of the answers given, does covenant theology expect that God will save children because their parents are saved? Is this respecting persons (the elect) because the child will be saveed because of the parents' faith?

 

[CCWoody]

1. Q -"Besides, the same criticism applies to Baptists: Why baptize a person if you don't know for certain that they are saved?"
1. A. Well, if you're asking a Reformed Baptist, we only baptize those who have a credible profession of faith. While some might be baptized unsaved, it is less likely that someone is unsaved when baptized by RBs.

Less likely/ more likely. It is still not a certaintity. If you condemn paedoBaptists for baptizing an infant when they don't know for certain that they will ever repent and believe, then the same condemnation must be applied to Baptists. Therefore, the baptism of the lost cannot be a valid criticism of infant baptism.

2. Q-"Well, yeah? At least we/ they proceed on the assumption that their kids are elect. Do Baptists think that only some of their children are Elect? I mean, as a father of 4, should I look at my kids and think: "Only 2 of you are God's and the rest of you are Satan's spawn?"


2.A Well, Reformed Baptists hope that their children are elect, but they would never just assume that their kids are elect. Since we don't have this assumption, we fervently pray to God that He would save them. Whenever we pray for a pregnant woman, we ask that God would save her child at a young age, but it is never assumed that the child will just be elect anyway because of its parents. What about King David? He was a believer but look at his family. There is a long list of kings from his line where God says, "And 'xyz' was more wicked than any other before him." What about Absalom? Were all of David's children saved? What about Jacob and Esau-they had believing parents? "Jacob have I loved and Esu have I hated?" What are your thoughts on these verses?

paedoBaptists do not assume that their children are elect either. They have an expectation that they are based upon certain passages of the Bible. But that is different than an assumption.

Speaking of David. Do you suppose that when David had his sons circumcised as infants that he did so with the expectation that they were a part of the community of God but without the certaintity that they really belonged to God?

Also, it was prior to the circumcision of Ishmael that Abraham was told, "My covenant will I establish with Isaac." Rebecca knew by revelation, prior to the birth of her two sons, that Esau was to be rejected. Nevertheless, in accordance with the visible sign of the covenant, they were still circumcised. (If I remember my order here.)

3

. Q"-I would think not. While there is breath, there is still time to repent and believe. Perhaps, after death, one might reasonably conclude that a child is not among the elect. Of course, the same applies to Baptists."

3.A Of course, the Baptists don't have the presupposition that all of their children will be saved because they are. Not that they would ever claim that their children aren't elect (because, as you said, there is hope while there is breath), but they always continue to pray for their salvation.

If it is true that Reformed Baptists really don't have an expectation that their children are elect and will be saved (per Acts 2:38 and others), then, I would say that Presbyterianism does indeed have a certain hope for parents that Baptists cannot give. You might want to clarify or seek clarification on this issue with your own elders.

I, though I am Presbyterian in my church, am still very much Reformed Baptist in my view of baptism (even if I am earnestly studying the issue). I would be shocked if the Baptistic view was not the same as Presbyterians regarding the expectations for their children.

4. Q "You would have to ask them. However, some of my friends simply can't recall a day of their life when they didn't have faith in Christ. Perhaps that is what they mean."


4.A. That sort of sounds like my testimony. However, could a love and/or belief for/in God/Christ be confused with a saving knowledge of Him? Although I'm not sure exactly when God saved me, I do know that I cannot remember a time when I did not love Him or believe in His existance or know that the Bible was His word. But did that make me saved? I don't really think so. I think that God saved me at a later time (not really sure when, but I think that it was later).

I would say that a love for God as a child would be a type of very young faith/ trust. I would not call such a person unsaved. We clearly differ there.

I do have a question, though. When were you baptized if you cannot really identify a time of regeneration and conversion in your life?

5

. Here is just another question that I just thought of- The Bible says that God is not a respector of persons in whom He elects and whom he damns. But, from some of the answers given, does covenant theology expect that God will save children because their parents are saved? Is this respecting persons (the elect) because the child will be saveed because of the parents' faith?

Well, I don't know.

Do you think it is respecting persons for the promise to be to us and to our children and to all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call? (Acts 2:38)

Was it respecting persons when we read that the LORD delighted only in Israel's fathers, to love them and choose their seed after them above all other peoples? (Deut 10:15)

 

[Erinwilcox]

I'm not trying to combat you, only study this out of respect to all of you. Since I know that most of you are paedobaptists (and I respect you all greatly), I thought that maybe I could learn something. But, I'm really just trying to understand covenant theology better.

As for the Baptism issue, I don't see baptizing infants as such a big deal, necessarily. But when John the Baptist baptized in the Jordan River, is there biblical proof that he baptized entire families (infants included)? If all of the parents who were baptized by John were then saved, then wouldn't their children have had to have been baptized too?

Q. When were you baptized if you cannot really identify a time of regeneration and conversion in your life?
Well, I was first baptized in 1996 in a church that believed in Baptismal Regeneration. My parents did not believe this, though. They thought that I was saved and I thought that I was saved. I was seven. But, as I look back now, I know that I was sinful, wicked, and not leading the life that I would expect a Christian girl to live. However, my parents are convinced that I was saved at that time. You see, when I was four, I "accepted Christ." I always had a zeal for the Lord and would often force my unsaved friends to kneel down and pray the sinners' prayer. But, in 1996, I know that I was a bad kid. Also, since the church believed in Baptismal Regeneration, I was sort of forced into being baptized by peer pressure. All of the baptized kids would take communion every week in children's church. If you weren't baptized. . .

When I first started hearing about Reformed theology, I began to really understand sin for the first time. I realized that I was a wicked sinner, undeserving of grace. I began hearing about hell. It was about this time that I began to question my former claims of salvation. I remember calling out to God that he would have mercy on my soul, grant me repentance, and save me from my sin. Just before my sixteenth birthday, I told my pastor that I wanted to become a member of the church and be baptized. To enter the membership of my church, you must have a credible profession of faith. At that time, there was no age limit for membership. The elders told me that I had a very credible profession of faith. Then, I heard nothing for a while. As you know, Reformation Day was on a Sunday last year. I wanted to be baptized on that day-it would have meant so much to me. So, I approached the elders again, asking them what their decision was. They said that even though I hada credible profession of faith, they were making a new rule that one had to be seventeen in order to join the church. I listened with tears streaming down my face. This, the desire of my heart, was being withheld for no biblical reason. I was informed that it was nothing against me, it was all "political." Although they didn't give a reason, my parents knew what it was. There was another girl, older than I, who wanted to join the church but was being held back because her profession wasn't credible. They couldn't let me in but not let her in. . .there would have been trouble. I waited over a year to join the church. On the eve of my seventeenth birthday, I met with the elders of my church. I gave them my testimony. Then, on July 10, 2005, I was re-baptized and joined to the membership of TRBC. It was my choice to be re-baptized. It was not forced on me. My parents didn't think that it was necessary, neither did my pastors. However, I felt, for my own sake, that I wasn't sure about my spiritual state at my first baptism. So, with my parents' blessing, I was rebaptized.

 

[CCWoody]

I'm not trying to combat you,....

You have no need to worry. I haven't thought yet that you were trying to be combative. I'll let you know if you walk the few miles to get there.

As for the Baptism issue, I don't see baptizing infants as such a big deal, necessarily. But when John the Baptist baptized in the Jordan River, is there biblical proof that he baptized entire families (infants included)? If all of the parents who were baptized by John were then saved, then wouldn't their children have had to have been baptized too?

If, as a good Baptist girl, you acknowledge that a valid Baptism is a Trinitarian one, then do you think that John's Baptism was Trinitarian or something else?

Thank you for sharing your testimony. I, too, would see no reason why a 16 year old should not be allowed to join the church. Of course, I'm fully Presbyterian in that regard.

BTW, shouldn't you be in school or something right now?

 

[Erinwilcox]

Well, it kind of went against everything they've always preached- once you have a credible confession of faith, nothing should keep you from being baptized and added to the church. Since we are elder led Baptists, the elders decided to avoid controversy over letting me in (since there was that other person being held back) rather than doing what my parents and other good members think is biblical.

Oh, something else that I thought of. Since you believe that your children are elect, do you still actively evangelize them?

Actually, I was/am home schooled. Only now, I am taking my classes at the community college (double dipping!) and my instructor cancelled for today.

 

[CCWoody]

Oh, something else that I thought of. Since you believe that your children are elect, do you still actively evangelize them?

The gospel is not only for the lost, but also for the saved. The gospel is for me and for you. You see, I can tell you that it is worth giving up all that you have to have Christ for yourself. Or, I can continue to place him in front of you so that you can see his self-evident beauty and desirability. It is as Matthew says:

Mat 13:44-46 GB
(44) Againe, the kingdom of heauen is like vnto a treasure hid in ye field, which when a man hath found, he hideth it, and for ioy thereof departeth and selleth all that he hath, and buieth that field.
(45) Againe, the kingdome of heauen is like to a marchant man, that seeketh good pearles,
(46) Who hauing found a pearle of great price, went and solde all that he had, and bought it.

Seeing Christ saves and sanctifies. When you are called to a new act of obedience that will cost you, the only way that you will get through it is to be firmly convinced of the surpassing beauty of what you will gain by not clinging to the things of this life. And you will never have that conviction by clinging only to someone's urging that you need to be able to sacrifice all and the Bible says so. You will only be able to perservere by having a firm vision of what you gain, being persuaded that Christ is real and will fulfill all his promises to those who truly love him.

 

[Erinwilcox]

Q. Doesn't Acts 2:39 indicate a continuation of the principle of including children under the new covenant?

A. In his Pentecost sermon Peter states, "Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." The passage places two very clear conditions on all recipients of the promise -- one from man's perspective and one from God's. From man's perspective, the promise is to those who repent. From God's perspective, the promise is to those whom God calls. Taken in its plain meaning, these conditions apply to all parties: "you, your children, and those who are far off."
(Stan Reeves)

So couldn't the statement "You, your children, and those who are far off," mean that (in the context of the verses above it) the promise is for you, your children, and those who are far off? In other words not excluding the children or those afar off from being a part it? In other words (believe me, I know this sounds stupid), if I say "I am having a wonderful party where you will eat great food, have lots of fun, and meet lots of people. Everyone on SR is invited. Nobody is excluded from my invitation." What if nobody shows up to my wonderful party? I included everyone, but nobody accepted it? So also, could the promise to your children be that they are not excluded from the offer of salvation, but rather they may come too? Does it necessarily mean that the children have to accept the promise?

You know, Woody, now that I think about it, since we are Reformed, it doesn't really matter whether or not we believe in Covenant theology or Baptistic theology-since God is sovereign in salvation, the only thing that really matters is that ALL of his elect will come. Whether from a Christian home or not, God will save all of His elect in His own due time. The only difference, I guess, would be the time of baptism. I still think that the Bible teaches believer's baptism, but I am still looking at your covenant theology as well.