The Highway
Posted By: E_F_Grant Covenantal Succession - Fri Jan 23, 2004 8:33 PM
I'm just learning about the doctrine of covenantal succession, an overview of which can be found here: http://www.faithtacoma.org/covenant2.htm

Would love to hear agreements and criticisms of this subject! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/chatter.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: E_F_Grant Re: Covenantal Succession - Sun Jan 25, 2004 9:02 AM
Here is a synopsis if you have not got quite the time needed to read a 17-page article.

http://www.acidink.org/ (for January 14)

This subject is of extreme interest to me right now. It involves a change of perspective concerning our children. Instead of waiting for them to show the fruit of being Christians, covenantal succession assumes that becuase they are children of believers, that they are Christians. It's sort of like a royal family, if you will: children of royals are born royal. They are acknowledged publicly (baptism) in order to be able to receive an inheritance. Then they are trained up in what it means to be royal. Baptism promises regeneration, and they step into their roles of service. Covenantal succession recognises that the promise is to us and to our holy seed.

There is, to me, both great hope and fear in this. Fear, because I wonder if I havedone right by my children. Hope, because I may boldly ask God for the holy seed He has promised to be made manifest in my children. I have one child who has shown fruit, and another who has not. I rejoice in the one and fear for the other.

Comments?
Posted By: J_Edwards Re: Covenantal Succession - Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:52 PM
Quote
This subject is of extreme interest to me right now. It involves a change of perspective concerning our children. Instead of waiting for them to show the fruit of being Christians, covenantal succession assumes that becuase they are children of believers, that they are Christians. It's sort of like a royal family, if you will: children of royals are born royal. They are acknowledged publicly (baptism) in order to be able to receive an inheritance. Then they are trained up in what it means to be royal. Baptism promises regeneration, and they step into their roles of service. Covenantal succession recognises that the promise is to us and to our holy seed.
But, even the children of believers do not become a king until they have been officially inaugurated (actual salvation itself) by grace alone. Children of believers, while having royal privileges (the Word, baptism, being raised in/by a royal family, etc.), if they are to be saved in the fulness of time are saved only by Him that sheweth mercy and not by belonging to a particular family. Case and point: Esau. Circumcision for Esau did not save him or give him “the” inheritance. Salvation is not by works—baptismal regeneration. Please do a search for the Malone/McMahon thread that was locked—it covered the subject (part of it at least) in detail.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Sun Jan 25, 2004 1:43 PM
Quote
E_F_Grant said:
I'm just learning about the doctrine of covenantal succession, an overview of which can be found here: http://www.faithtacoma.org/covenant2.htm

Would love to hear agreements and criticisms of this subject! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/chatter.gif" alt="" />
Eleanor,

This is nothing more than a defense of presumptive regeneration, which Drs. McMahon and his crowd are teaching and trying to defend over on the "Puritan Board". The error has been around for quite a number of years and popularized by Abraham Kuyper among the Dutch Reformed churches. It has now spread into Presbyterian churches and even other denominations.

As Joe pointed out, there is a thread here where the subject was debated, albeit without much actual response from McMahon except his futile attempt to base everything he believes upon the WCF and hardly a mention off the Scriptures.

The doctrine denies most of the 5 Points of Calvinism, despite the loud and adamant protest against this charge by those who embrace this error of presumptive regeneration. Be that as it may, the facts speak for themselves. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> John 1:12, 13, all on its own, is enough to disprove the view. It's adherence build a very speculative case for their view through a maze of presuppositions and consecutive deductions which ends up as a "hyper-covenantalism", that is then used as the beginning presupposition. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

RonD and Jason1646 are the most vocal defenders of this view here. You might ask them to give you a defense for it.

My prayer is that you <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/flee.gif" alt="" /> from this stuff as fast as you can. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> Perhaps Susan will share with you the long and arduous road she has traveled in dealing with this serious error?

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:33 PM
Quote
RonD and Jason1646 are the most vocal defenders of this view here. You might ask them to give you a defense for it.

Jeff,

I have gone to great pains (even with you) to show that I do not believe that the offspring of believers are necessarily regnerate, have faith, or converted ipso facto. I have even said that we are to encourage our children unto conversion. What you must take issue with is my position that we are to treat our children prior to a making a credible profession of faith as ones for whom Christ died. Again, I do believe that believers should exhort their offspring unto saving faith.

In His Grace,

Ron

p.s. Joe understands me, why don't you? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> https://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthr...amp;o=&vc=1
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Sun Jan 25, 2004 5:18 PM
Quote
Ron lamented:
What you must take issue with is my position that we are to treat our children prior to a making a credible profession of faith as ones for whom Christ died.
Sorry Ron, if I've misrepresented your position regarding presumptive regeneration. Yes, I do take issue with how we are to "treat" covenant children prior to their making a credible profession of faith. To "treat" them as having been atoned for before they actually profess faith, is to me no different than pronouncing them saved. Of course, you adamantly deny this and even say you urge them to conversion. I am of course, very happy to see that you do this. But there still remains that illogical inconsistency in this particular matter; i.e., how one can "treat" a child as being atoned for before there is any evidence to justify this treatment. Yes, yes... I know you want to base your view on the alleged "promise of God". And this is where we part company, for I cannot see any universal promise of salvation given to believing parents for their children. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> The "promise" is: all who believe upon Christ will be saved infallibly.

Again, my apologies for misrepresenting your view. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sorry.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,
Posted By: E_F_Grant Re: Covenantal Succession - Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:16 PM
Let me first say that I have not settled on this view--yet. Those with whom I have been discussing this on another board would say, though, that God exercises free grace at conception: He chooses the child, just as He chose the believing parents.

Conversely the problem I have with it is that if it is a promise, how is it that some are not saved? Some apparently don't get saved, like Eli's children who were unrighteous priests.. Those who hold this position say, 1. We cannot determine truly who is saved and who is not. 2. There is a lifetime during which the child may come to Christ, and it may happen after we, the parents, are dead.

I do not believe in baptismal regeneration, but I could believe that regeneration and salvation is promised to the baptised first--at some point in their lives--, just as Christ came first for the Jews, then for the Gentiles.

I'm not looking for a free ride here, either. I'm fully--painfully, even-- aware that the training of our children has not been what it should have or could have been. I repent! The guilt I feel over this is nearly overwhelming. I have little left but God's mercy in this matter, and alot of agonised prayers.

I'll try to find that thread.
Posted By: J_Edwards Re: Covenantal Succession - Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:57 PM
Quote
Let me first say that I have not settled on this view--yet. Those with whom I have been discussing this on another board would say, though, that God exercises free grace at conception: He chooses the child, just as He chose the believing parents.
I am happy you have not settled on it—Good News, as IMHO, and a host of others, it is false theology and has far reaching implications of how one should raise their children if they really believed in presumptive regeneration. To their, "God exercises free grace at conception," I would say that God predestined ALL before the foundation of the world—Eph 1, and not at conception. All children are born with a fallen nature and must be born again. Grace is always given in the fullness of time (but, this is not necessarily at birth), if it is to be given at all. I find no Scripture telling me ALL children of believers are regenerated at birth, but I do have Scriptures stating they are dead in trespasses and sin (Rom 5).

I mentioned baptismal regeneration (BR), because of the statement, “Baptism promises regeneration.” This in effect borders on BR and does fully embrace PR (presumptive regeneration). I loved your illustration of Eli’s children—one I had not thought about. If one carries that illustration out to its logical end it fully discredits PR and BR.

I will be speaking to Sinclair Ferguson this week concerning these two issues, especially the PR view in light of the discussions we have had on it here. As Sinclair says, “You don’t get the benefits of the sacraments without belief….they operate in covenantal context.”
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:50 PM
Eleanor,
Sorry not to have replied sooner. I believe that it is dangerous to assume the salvation of all believers' children. I believe that we must be faithful in training our children up in the faith. That is our responsibility. Also we must leave the heart work to God, if they will be saved. My disagreement with those who believe in PR or BR is the idea of "treating children as Christians" before any evidence exists, and before any profession of faith, presuming them regenerate even before baptism without Scriptural warrant.
The ideas of Baptismal Regeneration and Presumptive Regeneration are very similar and have the same dangers.

Here's the Malone Thread.
https://www.the-highway.com/forum/showfla...;o=&fpart=1
Also another one that you may be interested in.

https://www.the-highway.com/forum/showfla...;o=&fpart=1

You might want to go over to the Puritan Board and read some threads from their Covenant theology forum. They are totally against Baptismal Regeneration, but are for Presumptive Regeneration. It doesn't exactly make sense to me! They have been discussing this issue constantly.
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/index.php

Consider also this quote by Hoeksema.

Quote
By reason of the fact that the Lord establishes His covenant in the line of successive generations, believers will confess in gratitude before the Lord that He counts them worthy to bring forth the true seed of the covenant. This seed of the covenant, however, does not consist of all children who are born of them, but only of the children of the promise. Certain it is that believers also bring forth another seed. Now, on this side of death and the grave fleshly ties may draw us, so that we say that we wish to see all our children saved, and do not wish that our own flesh and blood goes lost. But, in the final analysis, also in this respect the righteous must live out of their faith, not from their flesh... (Herman Hoeksema: Believers and Their seed, Reformed Free Publishing Association, Grand Rapids, 1971, pp. 157-158.)

And this by J. C. Ryle:
Quote
Men sometimes say that it makes no difference whether we think all baptized persons are regenerate or not. They tell us it all comes to the same thing in the long run. I cannot say so. To my humble apprehension it seems to make an immense difference. If I tell a man that he has grace in his heart, and only needs to "stir up a gift" already within him, it is one thing. If I tell him that he is dead in sins, and must be "born again", it is quite another. The moral effect of the two messages must, on the very face of it, be widely different. The one, I contend, is calculated by God's blessing to awaken the sinner. The other, I contend, is calculated to lull him to sleep. The one, I contend, is likely to feed sloth, check self examination, and encourage an easy self-satisfied state of soul: he has got some grace within him whenever he likes to use it, --why should he be in a hurry, why be afraid? --The other, I maintain, is likely to rouse convictions, drive him to self-inquiry, and frighten him out of his dangerous security: he has nothing to rest upon, --he must find a refuge and remedy, he is lost and perishing, --what must he do to be saved?...J. C. Ryle from Knots Untied

Also Eleanor, we all have failed as parents in some ways. God was the perfect parent and Adam fell. The Lord doesn't save anyone because their parents were "good enough" to deserve it. We all deserve hell and only because of God's grace is anyone saved. The Lord is merciful and since he has shown us mercy, we can hope that he will be pleased to show our children mercy as well. We must be faithful to pray and after we have done all we can, we must leave it in the Lord's hands. He will do what is right.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:06 PM
Quote
Yes, I do take issue with how we are to "treat" covenant children prior to their making a credible profession of faith. To "treat" them as having been atoned for before they actually profess faith, is to me no different than pronouncing them saved.

Pilgrim,

First of all, no problem mixing me up with others.

“Saved” is not the happiest of terms. As I have pointed out on this site, “saved” has three tenses. In the past, believers are saved from guilt and condemnation -- (according to his mercy he saved us). In biblical language this occurs upon conversion and not upon the atonement. In the present Christians are being saved from the power of sin -- (to us who are being saved the cross is the power of God). Whereas in the future the Christian will be fully saved not only from the penalty and power of sin (in justification and sanctification respectively), but from the very presence of sin through glorification. We are now being "Kept by the power of God through faith for the salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

Accordingly, an infant who is treated as one for whom Christ died falls into none of the three categories listed above so I think we should stay away from an unbiblical use of the word “saved.” It is true that all who have received the application of the atonement do indeed live in the first two orbits of salvation. Nonetheless, it has yet to be shown that to treat an infant born of faithful parents as being one of Christ’s sheep for whom he died is to treat someone as “saved" (i.e. already converted and being progressively sanctified, or glorified for that matter). If we employ one of the three biblical uses of the word “saved,” we avoid this confusion. At best, it may only be said that I believe that we should treat infants of believing parents as those for whom Christ died. It is confusing if not misleading to speak of salvation apart from conversion. Redemption must be applied, which you and I believe.

The Heart of the Matter:

In a word, I would treat such little children as ones for whom the atonement has been accomplished but possibly not applied. The evidence for this is the fact that such are born to faithful parents. When there becomes evidence to the contrary then I’ll act upon that evidence. Moreover, I do not base my theology on the “promise of God." I base my theological-treatment of the child solely upon the precedence of God’s word. For example, if an infant of a believing parent was not circumcised – God said the infant would have broken covenant. Consequently, the infant was to be considered in covenant with God, otherwise it could not have been considered a covenant breaker upon the parent’s disobedience or neglect. The covenant in view was none other than the unconditional Abrahamic-covenant, which was made with the Seed and all who would be in union with Christ. As with Scripture, I affirm (with you) that all Israel was not Israel and all the church is not the church. Nonetheless, if an infant was not circumcised he was to be considered a covenant breaker. Accordingly, if he were circumcised was he not then to have been considered a covenant keeper? And if a covenant keeper, one for whom Christ died yet still needed to be converted… If nothing else, please appreciate that my treatment of a believer's offspring is not based upon the promise of God but upon the precedence I find in Scripture.

In His Grace,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Mon Jan 26, 2004 3:02 AM
Quote
E_F_Grant said:
Here is a synopsis if you have not got quite the time needed to read a 17-page article.

http://www.acidink.org/ (for January 14)

This subject is of extreme interest to me right now. It involves a change of perspective concerning our children. Instead of waiting for them to show the fruit of being Christians, covenantal succession assumes that becuase they are children of believers, that they are Christians. It's sort of like a royal family, if you will: children of royals are born royal. They are acknowledged publicly (baptism) in order to be able to receive an inheritance. Then they are trained up in what it means to be royal. Baptism promises regeneration, and they step into their roles of service. Covenantal succession recognises that the promise is to us and to our holy seed.

There is, to me, both great hope and fear in this. Fear, because I wonder if I havedone right by my children. Hope, because I may boldly ask God for the holy seed He has promised to be made manifest in my children. I have one child who has shown fruit, and another who has not. I rejoice in the one and fear for the other.

Comments?

EFG,

If I may suggest, I would avoid vague terms such as "Christian," "saved" and analogies as well, like "royal families..." Please take a look at my posts and chime in if you like. Try to keep things as theologially precise as possible. As far as "baptism promises salvation," to whom you should answer. Also, is that promise with a condition or not? It's time to roll up the shirtsleeves and quit with the cliches. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/joy.gif" alt="" />

Blessings,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:54 PM
Quote
If I may suggest, I would avoid vague terms such as "Christian," "saved" and analogies as well, like "royal families..."
Ron, I don't disagree with your advice, you gave to Eleanor, but I have to disagree that words like Christian and saved are vague terms! They are only vague because they have been used wrongly by so many people. Their true meaning is plain enough.

I think the biggest trouble with this presumptive teaching is that we do honestly fear for our unsaved children and cannot bear to face the fact that if they are not saved, they are lost, and are in the Kingdom of darkness, and children of the devil!
Until I realized that about myself, I could not cry out to God for salvation.
I read a book before becoming a Christian called Being Human by Jerram Barrs and Ranald Macaulay (from L'Abri) that made me realize where I was spiritually.
Quote
Rescued From Darkness
Paul also views the work of Christ in its effect on the principalities and powers of darkness. "He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Col 1:13-14). We think of Satanists and occult practicers and those involved in explicitly demonic activities as belonging to Satan's Kingdom, but we tend to see the rest of mankind, including ourselves before we were Christians, in a neutral position--hovering between two kingdoms. However, the New Testament teaches that there are only two possibilities: either we have fellowship with God and through faith in Christ are in his kingdom or we belong to Satan. There is no neutral ground. Jesus called Satan the prince of this world, the world to which we belong. So every individual who is not a believer is a member of his kingdom. Satan is even called the god of this world by Paul. Humanity lives in enemy occupied territory, and we are all subjects of its king.

Satan can claim all human beings as his subjects because of our sinfulness and because, being made in God's image, we have a moral nature. We all do wrong, and we know it is wrong...

Those words stirred me up to cry out to God for mercy and to bring me into His Kingdom! The danger is real and until we are saved, we are lost and without hope!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Mon Jan 26, 2004 2:45 PM
Quote
Ron, I don't disagree with your advice, you gave to Eleanor, but I have to disagree that words like Christian and saved are vague terms!

Susan

As I pointed out, "saved" has three technical tenses associated with it. Moreover, people often add to these definitions by saying things like we are saved now (prior to the application of redemption) if Christ atoned for our sins. Therefore, I think we need to be careful when employing the term.... The term Christian has limited place in the discussion for it simply does not get to the pertinent questions concerning how we are treat covenant children. I think we would all agree that there is no reason to check sound systematic theology at the door with all its specific terms and definitions.

Blessings,

Ron
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Mon Jan 26, 2004 4:17 PM
Quote
The term Christian has limited place in the discussion for it simply does not get to the pertinent questions concerning how we are treat covenant children.
Well, as you might have expected, I flatly disagree with your dismissal of such terms as "saved" and "Christian" as being "vague", for they are without question part and parcel of sound Systematic Theology. Perhaps if we can agree upon the use of these terms that might help the discussion progress rather than being sidetracked with these personal concerns of yours?

Christian: One who professes to be a follower of Christ; having been convicted of sin, repented and turned to Christ in faith. The matter of the verity of that faith is not in question for our purposes.

saved: One who has been joined to Christ by faith and therefore justified, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, is being sanctified and who will be infallibly glorified; aka: one of Christ's sheep, one of the elect to whom the benefits of Christ's atoning work has been applied.

Now... do we treat covenant children as: "Christian", "saved" or "non-Christian" or "unsaved"?

With Susan, I only know of two distinct categories of people who stand before God. There are those who are dead in trespasses in sins, having been born with a corruption of nature and have Adam's guilt imputed to them. And, there are those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, united to Christ by faith and have been justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Take it from here. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:18 PM
Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
The term Christian has limited place in the discussion for it simply does not get to the pertinent questions concerning how we are treat covenant children.
Well, as you might have expected, I flatly disagree with your dismissal of such terms as "saved" and "Christian" as being "vague", for they are without question part and parcel of sound Systematic Theology. Perhaps if we can agree upon the use of these terms that might help the discussion progress rather than being sidetracked with these personal concerns of yours?

Christian: One who professes to be a follower of Christ; having been convicted of sin, repented and turned to Christ in faith. The matter of the verity of that faith is not in question for our purposes.

saved: One who has been joined to Christ by faith and therefore justified, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, is being sanctified and who will be infallibly glorified; aka: one of Christ's sheep, one of the elect to whom the benefits of Christ's atoning work has been applied.

Now... do we treat covenant children as: "Christian", "saved" or "non-Christian" or "unsaved"?

With Susan, I only know of two distinct categories of people who stand before God. There are those who are dead in trespasses in sins, having been born with a corruption of nature and have Adam's guilt imputed to them. And, there are those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, united to Christ by faith and have been justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Take it from here. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Again, "saved" is vague until unpacked and "Christian" has no bearing on the matter. You yourself have employed "saved" in this thread as meaning one for whom Christ died, prior to being converted. Hence the confusion.

The issue is, the Bible treats unconverted children as being in covenant (as I've pointed out). Accordingly, you must decide what this means. Just don't contradict the nature of the unconditional covenant. The only solution is that Scripture teaches us to treat children of believers as children of the promise, yet they still should be called to conversion.

In His Grace,

Ron
Posted By: E_F_Grant Re: Covenantal Succession - Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:55 PM
Is it possible to say that one can be "in covenant" (by that I mean to be like one of the ethnic Hebrews who were included when Abraham made covenant with God, even before they were born?) and "not elect"?

The word "elect" is another one with which I struggle here. I have always understood that if one is elect, then one WILL be saved, infallibly, as Pilgrim puts it. Perhaps it is a chicken-and-egg thing; which comes first? My understanding is that one is in covenant because one is elect, not the other way around. But if that is the case, then how could God be in covenant with a whole people, and some not be elect? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />
Please tell me what are the differences between "elect" and "In covenant".
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Mon Jan 26, 2004 6:19 PM
Pilgrim and I agree 100% on what I am going to say. The covenant of grace is "established" with Christ and in him the elect. The promise of God is unconditional! The "administration" of the covenant pertains to all who qualify by profession (or birth with respect to baptism and infants born of professing believers). We treat those that make a credible profession of faith as being part of the household of God. No doubt, there is wheat among the tares with respect to the administration of the covenant.

In sum, only those who are elect are truly in the covenant. It is the children of the promise (i.e. the elect) who are counted by God as the true Israel of God.

P&I, also, agree that children are to be called to repentance and faith in Christ. We may even agree that we are to treat them as being in covenant, since Isaac as an infant could have broken covenant by his father's neglect. Where we differ is that since I would treat the infant as being covenant with God and since the covenant is unconditional, I would say to the infant that Christ died for him. Based upon this treatment, I would exhort the infant to repent and believe in order to receive the reconciliation. Again, we both agree that the infant may not be elect and, therefore, never truly repent.

In His Grace,

Ron
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Mon Jan 26, 2004 7:23 PM
Quote
Ron insists:
Again, "saved" is vague until unpacked and "Christian" has no bearing on the matter. You yourself have employed "saved" in this thread as meaning one for whom Christ died, prior to being converted. Hence the confusion.
No sir, there is no confusion. You wanted "Systematic Theology", yet you won't accept the biblical definitions of what a Christian is or what "saved" connotes; e.g., one for whom Christ has atoned for, the Spirit has applied Christ's atoning benefits; regeneration, hence conversion, justification, being sanctified and will infallibly be glorified. (speaking of the living). Likewise, the biblical definition of "Christian" is one who is a disciple/follower of Jesus Christ.

So, the question is a valid one, which I will iterate once again: Do we treat covenant children by virtue of their being born into a home of a believer, as Christians or not? Do we treat covenant children as saved or unsaved? The Bible knows no other category of human being. They are either joined to Christ, and therefore Christian and saved, or outside of Christ and therefore non-Christian and unsaved. I don't understand the problem here? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Quote
Just don't contradict the nature of the unconditional covenant. The only solution is that Scripture teaches us to treat children of believers as children of the promise, . . .
Again, I suspect we will be at odds in regard to the "unconditional covenant". For I firmly believe that the Covenant of Grace is unconditional.. based upon the immutable and infallible promise of God to save all who were elected to salvation. This promise was made with Abraham as a believer and to his "seed", which is Christ (Gal 3:16) and those who are "in Christ" (Gal 3:29). To posit that anyone is an "heir of the promise" requires the prerequisite of being a "son", one who has been adopted by grace through Christ (Gal 4:7). Therefore, I cannot "treat" anyone, regardless of birth as a "child of the promise" unless they give evidence of being "in Christ", displaying "fruit of the Spirit", etc.

One cannot be a "child of the promise" yet not united to Christ by faith. It's a contradiction of terms and contrary to all that the Scripture teaches.

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Mon Jan 26, 2004 7:33 PM
Quote
Again, I suspect we will be at odds in regard to the "unconditional covenant". For I firmly believe that the Covenant of Grace is unconditional.. based upon the immutable and infallible promise of God to save all who were elected to salvation. This promise was made with Abraham as a believer and to his "seed", which is Christ (Gal 3:16) and those who are "in Christ" (Gal 3:29). To posit that anyone is an "heir of the promise" requires the prerequisite of being a "son", one who has been adopted by grace through Christ (Gal 4:7). Therefore, I cannot "treat" anyone, regardless of birth as a "child of the promise" unless they give evidence of being "in Christ", displaying "fruit of the Spirit", etc.

One cannot be a "child of the promise" yet not united to Christ by faith. It's a contradiction of terms and contrary to all that the Scripture teaches.

Pilgrim,

You have a fallacy of reason. Here is your argument:

P1: The covenant is unconditional
P2: To posit that anyone is an “heir of the promise” requires the prerequisite of being a “son”…
Conclusion: Therefore, I cannot “treat” anyone, regardless of birth as a “child of the promise” unless they give evidence of being “in Christ”….

Your conclusion goes way beyond the scope of the premises. You have two propositions in your first two premises, which I agree with. However, your conclusion has not logically been defended by your argument. Your conclusion that we are not to treat anyone who has not made a profession of faith as being a child of promise remains dogma without support. It may be correct, but saying so doesn’t make it so.

Maybe you might tell me what God meant by saying that an infant could break covenant if the parent did not have him circumcised. In other words, as I stated before: As with Scripture, I affirm (with you) that all Israel was not Israel and all the church is not the church. Nonetheless, if an infant was not circumcised he was to be considered a covenant breaker. Accordingly, if he were circumcised was he not then to have been considered a covenant keeper? And if a covenant keeper, one for whom Christ died yet still needed to be converted…

Blessings,

Ron
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:23 PM
Eleanor,

Ron did a good job in explaining things to you, IMHO. Perhaps I could put it another way, just in case you are still a bit hazy on this matter? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

"Election" is eternal and immutable. It is God's choice (decree) among the race of mankind to save a remnant for Himself by the atoning sacrifice of Christ in their behalf and to bring them to Christ by the inner working of the Holy Spirit. The election to salvation must be realized in time, by regeneration and conversion. Thus, being "elect", although guarantees salvation, doesn't actually save in and of itself. Election to grace must also be accompanied by salvation by grace, i.e., through the means also decreed to that end.

God also decreed to enter into a covenant with mankind with the end that those whom He covenanted with would be infallibly saved. To the "elect", He made a promise to save them by grace. Those who have had the atoning work of Christ applied are said to be "in Christ" and thus "adopted sons" and thus they may then be said to be "children of the covenant". To be "in covenant" with God, speaking specifically now of the Covenant of Grace, means to be in a saving relationship with God; i.e., reconciled to Him in Christ.

Quote
My understanding is that one is in covenant because one is elect, not the other way around.
No, you are confusing a "decree" of God with a "relationship" with God. Even the "elect" are not "in covenant" until they come to faith in Christ; having been reconciled to God having been at enmity with Him up until that time. Faith and repentance are prerequisites for entering into covenant with God, even though the covenant itself is unconditional. In other words, faith and repentance do not create the covenant, for God alone has established the covenant unilaterally. And since repentance and faith are gifts of God, they cannot be said to be "conditions", i.e., something which the recipient brings of himself. All is of God (gifts of grace). But it is necessary for one to exhibit those gifts before membership in that covenant can be affirmed. To put it very simply, the covenant is made with believers. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Lastly, Ron has also rightly explained our differences. Where he would presume that "Christ has atoned for the sins of all covenant children. He then finds warrant to tell any and all covenant children, "Christ died for your sins.". Whereas I believe that Christ died for only for the elect, of whom I have no specific knowledge as to their identity prior to a profession of faith, I cannot say to anyone until that time of their making profession that Christ died for their sins.

Okay... is all that clear as mud now? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous Just curious - Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:29 PM
Ron,
Maybe it would help if you define exactly what you mean when you say you believe in "treating Covenant children as Christians."

This sounds like you are saying that you are treating them as though they are already Christians.

I think we should treat our children as gifts given to us by God, who we are to teach about God, salvation and the Bible while praying for them and hoping that one day God will graciously shows them mercy, they will put their faith in Christ and be saved. Do you mean more than that here?
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:48 PM
Quote
Maybe you might tell me what God meant by saying that an infant could break covenant if the parent did not have him circumcised.
Sure! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> There was a nationalistic aspect and a salvific aspect. As we both affirm, "not all Israel is of Israel".... yet ALL were of Israel in respect of being part of the nation of Israel. The breaking of the covenant was the breaking of the external relationship to which the person belonged. One who was part of the Covenant of Grace, (spiritual aspect) could never break the covenant. For that would mean that they could lose the salvation which was promised as part and parcel of that Covenant. One cannot be "in covenant" in the salvific sense and then break that covenant. This would be to deny the efficacy of the covenant and promise which God established with the "seed"; i.e., those in Christ.

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Just curious - Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:56 PM
Quote
Susan said:
Ron,
Maybe it would help if you define exactly what you mean when you say you believe in "treating Covenant children as Christians."

This sounds like you are saying that you are treating them as though they are already Christians.

I think we should treat our children as gifts given to us by God, who we are to teach about God, salvation and the Bible while praying for them and hoping that one day God will graciously shows them mercy, they will put their faith in Christ and be saved. Do you mean more than that here?

Susan,

I don't believe I ever said that we should treat covenant children as "Christians." What I have said is that we ought to treat covenant children as ones for whom Christ died -- and who need to repent and come to faith in Christ alone. I, with you, "think we should treat our children as gifts given to us by God, who we are to teach about God, salvation and the Bible while praying for them and hoping that one day God will graciously shows them mercy, they will put their faith in Christ and be saved."

Pilgrim has said that because I would tell my children that Christ died for them and that they should place their trust in him in order to apply God's redemption (obviously not in those exact words) that I, therefore, treat them as saved. I deny this charge because to be saved is to be already converted.

To close the loop, I believe that God's promise of salvation is only to the elect alone. This promise is without condition. Just like there are members of many congregations who are not truly children of the promise, we still are to regard them as such if their doctrine or lifestyle does not give us occasion to question their profession. As for children of believing parents, I do not regard them as already converted but I do believe they are to be regarded as sheep for whom Christ died -- again though, that must be converted. At the very least, we are to regard them as being in covenant with God, but what does this mean? The children of Israel were to be regarded as covenant breakers for not being circumcised. This presupposes that they were to be treated as already in covenant by birth. Maybe we should start here. What does it mean for an infant to be in covenant and how does that differ from the status of an infant born of pagan parents?

In His Grace,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:13 PM
Ron Stated: Maybe you might tell me what God meant by saying that an infant could break covenant if the parent did not have him circumcised.

Pilgrim States: Sure! There was a nationalistic aspect and a salvific aspect. As we both affirm, "not all Israel is of Israel".... yet ALL were of Israel in respect of being part of the nation of Israel. The breaking of the covenant was the breaking of the external relationship to which the person belonged. One who was part of the Covenant of Grace, (spiritual aspect) could never break the covenant. For that would mean that they could lose the salvation which was promised as part and parcel of that Covenant. One cannot be "in covenant" in the salvific sense and then break that covenant. This would be to deny the efficacy of the covenant and promise which God established with the "seed"; i.e., those in Christ.

Pilgrim,

This is extremely weak. In fact I’m rather surprised that you would employ such an argument. There was no national aspect to the Abrahamic covenant or the covenant of grace. The promise was a people, a land and redemption, which are fulfilled in the true church, heaven and Christ. Moreover, God commanded circumcision 430 years prior to the formation of the nation of Israel. Even if we were to consider the external people of God under Moses, for an infant to have broken covenant did not merely mean he was no longer part of the nation of Israel. It meant that he was no longer to be treated as part of the spiritual people of God. Given my initial question from above, your response would indicate that you believe that to break covenant under Abraham was to no longer be part of the nation under God – which wasn’t even in existence!

Blessings,

Ron
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:31 PM
Quote
This is extremely weak. In fact I’m rather surprised that you would employ such an argument.
Surprise, surprise! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Weak, in YOUR estimation. Abraham was also promised to be the "father of a great and many nations". So, it was there in seed form.

What is perplexing and surprising to me is that you would insist that one could be in "covenant with God" according to the promise of God; aka: salvation and be able to "break covenant", i.e., to cut off their salvation. And all this just to try and defend your desire to be able to tell an unbelieving child that Christ died for his sins? . . . when in fact you have no knowledge of that fact. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

So, you tell you little Bobby that "Christ died for you and paid for all your sins." And then when he shows no fruit of the indwelling Spirit of God, you tell him what? "I guess Christ didn't die for your sins after all."? Or, do you resort to Arminian retorts, such as, "Well, Jesus did pay for all your sins on the cross, but you didn't make take advantage of that."?

Tell me, brother, what is so important that we as believing parents tell our children, "Christ died for you"? Is that supposed to be some encouragementn to the child to believe on Christ? If so, then why not tell EVERYONE that Christ died for their sins? Of course, I am assuming you don't do that, do you? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Just curious - Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:26 PM
Ron,
Quote
Susan,

I don't believe I ever said that we should treat covenant children as "Christians." What I have said is that we ought to treat covenant children as ones for whom Christ died -- and who need to repent and come to faith in Christ alone.

That is how you phrased it in a previous post.

https://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthr...amp;o=&vc=1

I think that Joe is exactly right when he said that you don't believe in Presumptive Regeneration, but I believe you are instead holding to Presumptive Election, because to regard unconverted children "as sheep for whom Christ died", or "as children of the promise" without knowing they are converted is presuming they are elect, and God hasn't given us that information. Wouldn't it be much better to say to your child instead?, "Christ died for sinners. He has promised to save all those who will come to Him in true repentance and faith." If you decide to do this, then we won't have anything else left to quibble over except Baptism! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Just curious - Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:05 AM
Susan,

First of all, I appreciate your ability to distinguish the point from that which is not the point. I am glad that this discussion has moved from "presumptive regeneration" to "presumptive election."

You must admit that when the pastor addresses the congregation he treats it according to 1 Corinthians 15; in other words he will say to the visible church that Christ died for their sins – without knowing for sure. I don’t like the pejorative sound of “presumes” though, simply because it sounds as if there is no warrant for the treatment. I’d rather say that the pastor is treating the congregants according to biblical precept that they are among those for whom Christ died. Nonetheless, to use your terminology he does so "without knowing they are indeed converted." Moreover, when the supper is served to individuals, those serving the elements are no less than treating the recipients as if they were in Christ – though “God hasn't given us that information,” to again borrow your terminology. My point is that you yourself cannot get around these strictures. We all treat as believers for whom Christ died those who may not be and probably aren’t. Accordingly, you are “presuming” (again using your terminology not mine) certain people to be converted “without knowing” for sure because “God hasn’t given us that information.” So, it is not a matter of God imparting to us some special knowledge of who is converted or elect, but a matter of following the biblical paradigm set forth in Scripture. Even Judas, whom Christ knew, was treated by the Lord according to his profession and not possession.

Concerning infants, I would never say to an infant born of pagan parents that Jesus died for him, simply because there’s no biblical precedence for this. However, I do see the prophets and apostles addressing the visible community of believers (those marked out by the sign of entrance into the church) as the children of God. So to treat baptized infants in this way is to me very consistent. Again, had an infant of believing parents not been circumcised he would have broken covenant. Accordingly, infants are to be treated as being in covenant apart from our having knowledge of whether they are truly elect or not.

Susan, in short we both treat people according to precept and evidence. You simply require more evidence like a credible profession; whereas I believe that the Bible requires of us less evidence than that. The evidence I believe the Bible requires for us to treat an infant as one of Christ’s sheep for whom he died is birth into a believing household. Certainly we would agree that those born of believing parents have a greater chance of conversion than others. Accordingly, there is evidence. The only question is whether there is biblical precept or not.

In His Grace,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:33 AM
Quote
What is perplexing and surprising to me is that you would insist that one could be in "covenant with God" according to the promise of God; aka: salvation and be able to "break covenant", i.e., to cut off their salvation.

Even a cursory reading of my posts bears out the fact that I have never suggested that one can lose his covenant position in Christ. You simply will not allow for the distinction between the establishment of the covenant (which is with the elect only), and the formal administration of it (to the elect and the reprobate).

Your whole defense of the issue of circumcised children breaking covenant under Abraham was that they fell away from the national covenant. Again, there was no view toward national covenant when God put forth the stipulations of the Abrahamic covenant; for this covenant was an everlasting covenant. Surely your biblical (Vosian) theology is much better than this. The simple solution is that when infants "break covenant" they fall away from the external status of elect.

Quote
So, you tell you little Bobby that "Christ died for you and paid for all your sins." And then when he shows no fruit of the indwelling Spirit of God, you tell him what? "I guess Christ didn't die for your sins after all."? Or, do you resort to Arminian retorts, such as, "Well, Jesus did pay for all your sins on the cross, but you didn't make take advantage of that."?

The apostle Paul told the baptized community at Corinth that Christ died for "our sins." Yet some were not converted no doubt. Accordingly, when hypocrites manifest there unbelief the church should say with the apostle John that they went out from us because they were not truly of us. The church often times has to change its declarations. This is no surprise. If we aren’t willing to do this then the church can never say with Paul that Christ died for our sins – for the declaration will on occasion be incorrect.

Quote
Tell me, brother, what is so important that we as believing parents tell our children, "Christ died for you"? Is that supposed to be some encouragementn to the child to believe on Christ? If so, then why not tell EVERYONE that Christ died for their sins? Of course, I am assuming you don't do that, do you?

Working backwards, of course I don't do that simply because there’s no biblical precedence for it. As for the encouragement to the covenant child, yes I do think it's an encouragement -- but more to the point, there's enormous biblical precedence in my estimation. As for the encouraging aspect, I can only imagine that God is giving his elect children the comfort of knowing this precious truth from birth. I can only wonder whether God on some occasions has ordained reprobation to covenant children by the means of also ordaining that they not be treated as Christ’s lambs by their parents from birth.

That's all I really have to say on the matter. My position is clear and you obviously reject it. I only hope that you would represent it in Christian charity.

Blessings in Christ,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:43 AM
Quote
Lastly, Ron has also rightly explained our differences. Where he would presume that "Christ has atoned for the sins of all covenant children. He then finds warrant to tell any and all covenant children, "Christ died for your sins.". Whereas I believe that Christ died for only for the elect, of whom I have no specific knowledge as to their identity prior to a profession of faith, I cannot say to anyone until that time of their making profession that Christ died for their sins.

And even then he cannot know for sure whether they are telling the truth! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Ron
Posted By: John_C Re: Just curious - Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:44 AM
Ron & all,

Pardon my barging in, but how do you explain the widespread Christian nominalism in Reformed churches over the past two hundred years? Was parents assuming their children's right standing with God one of the primary reasons for that occurrence?

In addition, how do you recognize that a child is breaking the covenant. Do they have to disavow their faith in God, like a negative write-off. And, do they come under some type of church disicpline for their apostosy?

I think we need to remember that belonging to the covenant is not the end-all. Unless we received Christ Jesus by faith and repentance, our covenant standing will go for naught.
Posted By: MHeath Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:53 AM
Ron,

You said, "As for the encouraging aspect, I can only imagine that God is giving his elect children the comfort of knowing this precious truth from birth. I can only wonder whether God on some occasions has ordained reprobation to covenant children by the means of also ordaining that they not be treated as Christ’s lambs by their parents from birth."

Could you explain that please?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Michele
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:19 AM
Quote
The apostle Paul told the baptized community at Corinth that Christ died for "our sins." Yet some were not converted no doubt. Accordingly, when hypocrites manifest there unbelief the church should say with the apostle John that they went out from us because they were not truly of us. The church often times has to change its declarations. This is no surprise. If we aren’t willing to do this then the church can never say with Paul that Christ died for our sins – for the declaration will on occasion be incorrect.
Ron,

Again, I do feel your view is based far more on presumption than biblical factual statements. You are presuming that the letter to the Corinthians was addressed to infants as well as adults, to which I simply cannot imagine nor agree. Also your categories of "establishment of the covenant" and the "administration of the covenant" are not found in Scripture but are deductions, based upon a presupposition, to which I again must reject. There is nothing wrong with my knowledge of "Vosian" biblical theology. I am well aware of what Vos taught and I also realize that he was influenced in his views of covenant by Abraham Kuyper. And thus, I believe he errs in this particular area of theology.

Lastly, you didn't answer my question, which is fine... in regard to what you tell a covenant child who you have instructed from his/her earliest days that Christ has atoned for their sins and who never comes to faith. What do you then tell that now adult? that Christ didn't die for their sins? or that Christ did indeed for their sins and that despite that fact, they are destined to eternal judgment? Sounds awfully much like Arminian language to me.

Yes, you KNOW I respect your freedom to hold to your view, even though I find it indefensible and inconsistent. And although I find it a dangerous one, in that it has a potential to ingrain a false assurance in children and/or cause a crack in the wall of Calvinistic soteriology, specifically concerning Definite Atonement, it is far less objectionable than those who hold to a consistent presumptive regeneration. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Peace,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Just curious - Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:37 AM
John,

Nominalism is not merely found in Reformed circles. If your question is why so many covenant children do not go on with the Lord, I believe the primary reason is that we parents do not nurture our children as well as we ought.

If a child professes heresy or has a lifestyle that is incongruent to his profession of faith in Christ, such should be disciplined. Also, if a person will not proactively profess Christ there might be cause to discipline him. In other words, we mustn’t allow covenant children to grow into non-confessing adults without disciplining them.

And finally, YES, “Unless we received Christ Jesus by faith and repentance, our covenant standing will go for naught.”

In His Grace,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:44 AM
Quote
MHeath said:
Ron,

You said, "As for the encouraging aspect, I can only imagine that God is giving his elect children the comfort of knowing this precious truth from birth. I can only wonder whether God on some occasions has ordained reprobation to covenant children by the means of also ordaining that they not be treated as Christ’s lambs by their parents from birth."

Could you explain that please?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Michele

Michele,

Let me put it this way. If God would have us teach our children that he loves them and that Christ died for them, then we ought to. To not do so would be a means of depriving them of an early knowledge of God's love. This could work out to be the means by which they are hardened. Of course we need to square this with election, which is easy. God's means of providence are not just the means to bring to pass what he ordains (in this case election), but rather these means are ordained alongside with election. In other words, I find it quite feasible that to not treat our children as lambs of Christ is precisely what God warns Abraham of when he says that the child who is not circumcised breaks covenant with God.

Blessings,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:57 AM
Quote
Lastly, you didn't answer my question, which is fine... in regard to what you tell a covenant child who you have instructed from his/her earliest days that Christ has atoned for their sins and who never comes to faith. What do you then tell that now adult? that Christ didn't die for their sins?

Pilgrim,

I thought my answer was clear enough with my reference to 1 John, but let me elaborate in more detail. We might say that they denied the Lord that bought them. "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them... And man shall follow their pernicious ways..." 2Peter 2:1

Obviously such weren't truly "bought" by the blood of Christ. However, they were regarded as such and the apostle speaks as if they were prior to denying the faith. Whatever your interpretation of the verse is, the same strictures apply to any pastor who pronounces 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 to even only professing believers. There's no getting around it, unless you refuse to say that Christ died for anyone person in particular.

In His Grace,

Ron
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:06 AM
Quote
Whatever your interpretation of the verse is, the same strictures apply to any pastor who pronounces 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 to even only professing believers. There's no getting around it, unless you refuse to say that Christ died for anyone person in particular.
Again, the pastor has a Scriptural warrant to presume the salvation of ADULTS who have made a profession of faith and thus he can with good conscience say that Christ died for THEIR sins. But he has no warrant to look out to a congregation of mixed individuals, some members, some not and say that Christ died for everyone's sins. Infants are incapable of displaying marks of grace. Election is only known unto God and thus we cannot presume the election of anyone without evidence of a profession of faith and a life which exhibits the fruit of the Spirit. And even then we have no warrant to make a pronouncement but only a hopeful conjecture. We deal in the temporal, not the eternal. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Lastly, I seriously doubt that those who "left us", those false prophets were infants in diapers. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Again, they were ADULTS.

What we DO know is that ALL, with perhaps the very rare exception, is that ALL are born in sin. ALL have a corruption of nature. ALL have guilt imputed to them. ALL are in need of a radical change of nature; aka: regeneration. ALL are in need of Christ. ALL need to put faith in Christ and be justified. That much I can presume!

In His Grace,
Posted By: MHeath Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:10 AM
Ron, you may have already given the reference, but this is a long thread lol. Where does the bible say that an infant has broken covenant?

Michele
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Just curious - Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:37 AM
Quote
Moreover, when the supper is served to individuals, those serving the elements are no less than treating the recipients as if they were in Christ ; though God hasn't given us that information, to again borrow your terminology. My point is that you yourself cannot get around these strictures. We all treat as believers for whom Christ died those who may not be and probably aren't.
Ron,
Our church draws a clear line between believers and unbelievers. The pastor fences the table and unbelievers are warned not to partake of the supper lest they drink and eat condemnation on themselves. They are told they need to repent and believe the gospel. Likewise, our Covenant children who have not yet made a profession of faith are told that they must not partake of the supper .
A good pastor draws clear lines between the saved and unsaved and warns those in danger to repent and be saved. Paul said this to the Corinthians:

Quote
2 Corinthinans 5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? unless indeed you fail to meet the test! 6 I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test.

We all know that there are wheat and tares in the church and it is no charity to give people false assurance of salvation if they are under the wrath of God!

Quote
You must admit that when the pastor addresses the congregation he treats it according to 1 Corinthians 15; in other words he will say to the visible church that Christ died for their sins without knowing for sure.

Faithful pastors will surely make a distinction in application of the text for believers and unbelievers.
Spurgeon would speak to unbelievers at the end of his sermons and tell them the things of comfort and promise do not belong to them if they are outside Christ, and he would warn them that they need to flee to Christ for mercy and for salvation.

Quote
We all treat as believers for whom Christ died those who may not be and probably aren't. Accordingly, you are presuming (again using your terminology not mine) certain people to be converted without knowing for sure because God hasn't given us that information. So, it is not a matter of God imparting to us some special knowledge of who is converted or elect, but a matter of following the biblical paradigm set forth in Scripture. Even Judas, whom Christ knew, was treated by the Lord according to his profession and not possession.

Our church practices discipline to those whose life does not match their profession. Our elders must examine those who want to join the church to discern, as far as they are able, whether their profession of faith is genuine. It would be very irresponsible to do otherwise. Paul expresses his confidence in the validity of the Corinthians' salvation.

Quote
1 Corinthians 1:4 I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge 6 even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you 7 so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:43 AM
Michele,

I hadn't sited the address, but it is Genesis 17:14. "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."

Blessings,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Just curious - Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:48 AM
Susan,

If it surprises you that I agree with all you wrote then you have not yet understood my position.

Blessings,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:53 AM
Pilgrim,

I've addressed all these points.

Grace and Peace,

Ron
Posted By: MHeath Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:56 AM
so, do I understand correctly that God is saying basically, that if the 8 day old infant does not get himself circumcised, he's out?

Michele
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:58 AM
Quote
so, do I understand correctly that God is saying basically, that if the 8 day old infant does not get himself circumcised, he's out?

In the old covenant that would be true Michele. But keep in mind that circumcision didn't necessarily mean that the child's heart was also circumcised too. A child could be circumcised have all the benefits of growing up in the covenant community and yet in his heart of hearts be a rebel against God completely unregenerate.


Pete
Posted By: Tom Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:14 AM
Hmmm, "that soul shall be cut off from his people". That would seem to support what Pilgrim said about the physical, as opposed to the spiritual.
It also makes me think about Paul's writing in Romans 9, on how much he grieved for his kinsmen according to the flesh.

Tom
Posted By: J_Edwards Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:58 AM
Quote
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
The BIV gives this interpretation:

They crawled out from us, but they were not sucklings with us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have sucked with us: but they crawled out, that they might be made manifest that they were not sucklings like us.

BIV-Babies International Version
translated from the original Goo-goo Gaa-gaa of the Gerber's version

On a more serious note, I do not think the above translation works too well with the original. maybe RonD does <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> Children are born into sin. This is what the Scripture states and to deny this is to deny (1) the teaching of Scripture, and (2) Calvinism itself.
Posted By: J_Edwards Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:32 AM
Quote
2 Pet 2:1 Obviously such weren't truly "bought" by the blood of Christ.
REDEMPTION IN II PETER 2:1
Posted By: gotribe Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:28 AM
Quote
I can only wonder whether God on some occasions has ordained reprobation to covenant children by the means of also ordaining that they not be treated as Christ’s lambs by their parents from birth.

Reprobation to covenant children!?! But I thought covenant children were presumed to be elect, if not regenerate. So now we have two classes within covenant children; those that are elect and those that are reprobate.

Sounds to me as though you are affirming Pilgrim's statement:

Quote
With Susan, I only know of two distinct categories of people who stand before God. There are those who are dead in trespasses in sins, having been born with a corruption of nature and have Adam's guilt imputed to them. And, there are those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, united to Christ by faith and have been justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ.


Same two categories. Same two outcomes.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:08 PM
Quote
They crawled out from us, but they were not sucklings with us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have sucked with us: but they crawled out, that they might be made manifest that they were not sucklings like us.

Joe,

Your premise is simply arbitrary. You simply assume by dogma that those who went out from us cannot include those born into the status of the church and then later manifested that they were unbelievers.

At the very least appreciate that the WCF and Heidelberg Catechism both teach that children are part of the visible church (WCF XXV.2; HC.74). Accordingly, either you must say that all the visible church is not to be treated as the church for whom Christ died, or you must reject these Reformed confessions.

"Nothing could advertise more conspicuously and conclusively that this principle of God's gracious government, by which children along with their parents are the possessors of God's covenant promise, is fully operative in the N.T. as well as in the Old than this simple fact that on the occasion of Pentecost Peter took up the refrain of the old covenant and said, 'The promise is to you and to your children.'" John Murray

Obviously Murray did not believe that children born of professing believers are truly elect no matter what. At the very least Joe, appreciate that baptism is the visible inclusion of one into the visible church. Accordingly, since you now believe in the practice of infant baptism you must either maintain that the visible church is not to be treated as those for whom Christ died; or you must assert that the visible church does not include infants, which of course denies your practice of infant baptism.

If you are going to continue, please do so with at least moderate respect and sobriety.

Blessings,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:13 PM
Quote
gotribe said:
Quote
I can only wonder whether God on some occasions has ordained reprobation to covenant children by the means of also ordaining that they not be treated as Christ’s lambs by their parents from birth.

Reprobation to covenant children!?! But I thought covenant children were presumed to be elect, if not regenerate. So now we have two classes within covenant children; those that are elect and those that are reprobate.

Sounds to me as though you are affirming Pilgrim's statement:

Quote
With Susan, I only know of two distinct categories of people who stand before God. There are those who are dead in trespasses in sins, having been born with a corruption of nature and have Adam's guilt imputed to them. And, there are those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, united to Christ by faith and have been justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ.


Same two categories. Same two outcomes.

Kim,

I have said that covenant children are to be treated as elect and called to conversion. There are two classes of all people, elect and reprobate. However, the "visible" church by the nature of the case cannot be assured of the reality of its members.

Blessings,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:15 PM
Quote
Tom said:
Hmmm, "that soul shall be cut off from his people". That would seem to support what Pilgrim said about the physical, as opposed to the spiritual.
It also makes me think about Paul's writing in Romans 9, on how much he grieved for his kinsmen according to the flesh.

Tom

Yes, the people being the visible people of God -- the visible church. To not continue by the terms of the covenant will cost one his "standing" of being part of the people of God.

In His Grace,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:17 PM
Quote
MHeath said:
so, do I understand correctly that God is saying basically, that if the 8 day old infant does not get himself circumcised, he's out?

Michele

Michele,

If the parent doesn't do his job the infant is "out" (i.e. to no longer be regarded as one of God's elect, though of course that status might again change). How do you interpret the verse?

Blessings,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:18 PM
Quote
Sanctus_Stultus said:
Quote
so, do I understand correctly that God is saying basically, that if the 8 day old infant does not get himself circumcised, he's out?

In the old covenant that would be true Michele. But keep in mind that circumcision didn't necessarily mean that the child's heart was also circumcised too. A child could be circumcised have all the benefits of growing up in the covenant community and yet in his heart of hearts be a rebel against God completely unregenerate.


Pete

Indeed.

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:34 PM
Lots of Calvinist theory, long and dry, not at all convincing and containing no references to Scripture germane to the issue of covenantal succession.

I looked hard, but found no reference in the text to our Lord, Jesus, either.

Examples:

1st cited Scripture: Psalm 68:6 "God sets the solitary in families; He brings out those who are bound into prosperity; But the rebellious dwell in a dry land."

1st NT cited Scripture: Acts 2:38,39 "Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

Last cited Scripture: Hebrews 13:17 "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you." NKJV

Doesn't Acts 2:38,39 disprove this concept of covenantal succession when it says, "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." Further, please notice Peter says the promise is to as many as the Lord our God "will call" and he doesn't say the promise is to as many as the Lord our God "has elected."
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:57 PM
Greetings Pilgram:

Please explain why John 1:12,13 alone disproves the doctrine of covenantal succession. I don't agree with this doctrine and agree with you that it is a serious error, but I'm missing why John 1:12,13 disproves it.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12,13 NKJV

This passage is simply saying that when you receive the Holy Spirit (born again) you receive the right to become the children of God. "Received Him" is the result of "believe in His name." "Received Him" is the same as "born of God", which as I said means received the Holy Spirit.

I think you are trying to read something more into this passage than is there, but would appreciate your elaborating upon your understanding of this passage.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:02 PM
Eleanor,
This is from an old post of Pilgrm's that I had saved. I couldn't find it here on the search, but here it is.
Quote
Pilgrim wrote:

Acts 2:39?

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.
The way I read this passage, the bold phrase is the key to its understanding. For we know from O.T. history, Paul's quotes which I have included above, etc., that this "promise" is NOT all inclusive and indiscriminate. When God makes a promise, it is an infallible one. Thus, if this "promise" of salvation is given to ALL... then ALL shall receive it. We know that not all who hear the gospel, not all covenant children and/or adults are saved. Thus is it not correct, just on a logical basis that this text is not saying that there is an immutable salvation given to all covenant children? But exegetically, I have come to understand that this "promise" is given specifically to "as many as the Lord shall call", and to them only. These are the elect, the chosen in Christ who will come to repentance and faith, just as those who heard this message from Peter's very lips, did, including their children who did likewise. "By their fruit you shall know them."

...Here is my summary view: children of believers should receive the sign of baptism as the legitimate sign of the covenant of grace. Covenant children are to presumed unregenerate until proven otherwise, since they are born in sin and under the wrath of God, no differently than all of mankind. Covenant children are "holy" (1Cor 7:14), i.e, they are truly blessed in that they have been given the privilege of being born into a home where there is at least one believing parent through and by whom the gospel will be heard and used to regenerate them, if it so be God's electing choice to do so in His perfect time. And they are subject to the teaching of righteous living, according to the Scriptures. They also have the privilege of being present in the house of God where believers offer worship, hear the Word of God preached, witness the sacraments, hear the testimonies of godly men, women and children, etc. which are the means of grace given by God to convert sinners to Christ. Covenant children should be expected to make a valid profession of faith before the church when THEY are moved to do so; having been convinced of their own conversion and the necessity of doing so, thereby becoming full members, fellow heirs of Christ, with the Body of Christ.
Posted By: carlos Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:07 PM
Joe,
Quote
BIV-Babies International Version
translated from the original Goo-goo Gaa-gaa of the Gerber's version

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /><img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Carlos
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:29 PM
Quote
I think you are trying to read something more into this passage than is there, but would appreciate your elaborating upon your understanding of this passage.
Oh contráre!

Let's look at this passage carefully, shall we?

John 1:12-13 (ASV) But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: [color:"red"]who were born[/color], not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."


In verse 12, John tells us that those who received Christ or believed on Christ were given the "right or power" to become children of God. In the 13, which grammatically modifies verse 12, we are given the reason/cause for the receiving and/or believing, i.e., it was those who were antecedently "born". Then three negations follow which qualify this birth as being NOT: "of blood" (ancestry, familial inheritance), "of the will" (self-determination; i.e., of the will), or "of the flesh" (physically). Thus this being "born" was not of the natural creative order, inheritance or from choice, BUT it this birth was "of God", i.e., a supernatural, sovereign act of God Himself.

Thus, we can paraphrase this passage such as: "All who were born supernatural of God, received Jesus as the Messiah and/or believed upon His name and thus consequently were given the right and honor of becoming children of God."

Now, as to how this passage applies to "Covenantal Succession", it seems clear to me that one cannot be included as a child of God, a child of the promise, saved, a Christian by any natural means whatsoever. Being a child of God's kingdom is by supernatural birth only; aka: regeneration which infallibly produces a believing upon Christ.

In His Grace,
Posted By: J_Edwards Re: Covenantal Succession - Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:42 PM
Quote
You simply assume by dogma that those who went out from us cannot include those born into the status of the church and then later manifested that they were unbelievers.
Read the article I gave you above RonD, as you are not correctly interpreting 2 Peter 2:1! The thought of you actually using this verse as your proof text is really "isogesis".

Quote
Accordingly, either you must say that all the visible church is not to be treated as the church for whom Christ died, or you must reject these Reformed confessions.
I DO NOT put ANY history, confession or otherwise, above the Scriptures, but I now see you think it is more inspired than God's Word! In addition, I now understand that you believe an infant of a believer should be presumed regenerate at birth (and thus a member of the invisible Church) and later crawl out of the covenant and then be reprobate. Of course, this means you deny at least the Perseverance of the Saints and Total Depravity, which means you (1) do not believe the confessions (2) are not a Calvinist!

Why do you make a distinction in the visible and indivisible Church "for children" if YOU are going to presume them all regenerated? If you presume them regenerate then you must presume them a member of the invisible Church! Are there unregenerate members in the invisible Church? Do you pray for the salvation of your children RonD?

Please if you are going to continue this use a Scripture for your defense and exegete it "fully" in context as no one from the PR side has ever done that here "fully" to prove their point.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:16 AM
Joe,

You are a bitter man who is more interested in trying to win an argument than treating your opponent's position fairly. Either you simply do not have the acumen to debate or you just don't care that you lie. In either case, I find your tactics disgusting.

Goodbye to you and to the Highway.

Ron
Posted By: CovenantInBlood Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:34 AM
Quote
Joe wrote:

Why do you make a distinction in the visible and indivisible Church "for children" if YOU are going to presume them all regenerated? If you presume them regenerate then you must presume them a member of the invisible Church! Are there unregenerate members in the invisible Church? Do you pray for the salvation of your children RonD?

Where did Ron say that he presumes them regenerate? Did he not say that we should exhort our children to conversion? He "presumes" them elect, at best, which we all do with respect to a great number of people who profess Christ. I presume you elect, Joe; I presume Pilgrim elect, and Susan, and Marie, and Nathan, and many others here. Where you are really disagreeing with Ron is the treatment of unprofessing children as elect, because they cannot show forth the fruits of the Spirit as adults can. That is a valid argument, I think; but is it cause to be so hostile toward Ron? You are not being gentle; in contrast, Ron has been most patient and gentle throughout this discussion.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:41 AM
Kyle,

I think that you have described the issue correctly, i.e., Ron holds that covenant children are to [presumed elect but not regenerate and that is why he holds that covenant children need to be led to conversion. As I have tried to argue, this isn't taught in Scripture for various reasons and it is contradictory as well. For to presume that one is "elect" is of necessity to presume that they are members of the invisible church and will infallibly be saved at some point in time. Perhaps THAT is what Joe was trying to bring out? [Linked Image]

It is unfortunate that these types of discussions bring out the "heat" of passion and end up like this. [Linked Image]
In His Grace,
Posted By: J_Edwards Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:32 AM
That is close, but not exact. Here are some other previous statements that were made by RonD that I have kept in file on this issue. These offer great inconsistency and thus IMHO room for challenge.

Quote
“Finally, I have a greater confidence that I am to treat my children as Christians until they should show otherwise, than I do that they are actually elect.”

“So, YES, as you say, "Scripture no where speaks to the general community of the church as the 'elect'..."

“My point is that God delights in saving the children of the faithful and I have never seen him deny one single parent who was faithful.”

“Accordingly, in light of a true understanding of thesis, there is absolutely no place for parental presumption, simply because no parent can know whether he has arrived that level, which I have said is known only to God.”
I must agree it is unfortunate that these types of threads lead to false judgments and name calling.
Posted By: J_Edwards Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:34 AM
I am sorry you were offended, may God have mercy on you.
Posted By: J_Edwards Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:54 AM
Quote
He "presumes" them elect, at best...
Does he merely believe in the false doctrine of presumed election? At best I would say it is very confusing what he embraces. The majority of your reply is answered below in my reply to Pilgrim. And, please do a search on this subject as it was discussed several times before you ever arrived on this board and you are making judgments without all the facts.

IMHO I was being very gentle knowing the history of this topic probably a little more than you do. I was not being ungentle in asking RonD about his children for him and I discussed this issue in another thread named "Infant Baptism." I was not being ungentle there, I was allowing him to gently remember the posts there and how IMHO he had been cornered by the Scripture on "this" very issue.

You may desire to also ask yourself, "Is being gentle always the way our Lord rebuked error?" Though IMHO it is not applicable in this instance, it too is not always a valid form of an argument against false theology.
Posted By: CovenantInBlood Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:33 AM
Joe,

You went much too far in your responses to Ron in this particular thread. You've gone too far in a discussion with me once before, and I called you on it; but perhaps that has affected me and I'm being too hasty to judge the situation. But I think you ought to apologize. If you won't, so be it. I have spoken my piece.
Posted By: J_Edwards Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:03 AM
Quote
You went much too far in your responses to Ron in this particular thread. You've gone too far in a discussion with me once before, and I called you on it; but perhaps that has affected me and I'm being too hasty to judge the situation. But I think you ought to apologize. If you won't, so be it. I have spoken my piece.
If, as I have already suggested, you would read ALL the posts you would see where an apology was already given, well before you ever posted this! So, yes,once again, you were to hasty to judge the situation. May God have mercy.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:19 PM
Pilgrim,

I think the concept of "covenantal succession" supposes the salvation of the ancestors extends to their progeny, which is by the grace of God through the covenant made with Abraham.

This verse doesn't contradict this concept, but could be used, if wrongly interpreted, to support the concept.

"Born of God", if through covenantal succession, could be twisted by extension to mean "born unto salvation because of a covenant made with their ancestors." "Not of blood" could be wrongly thought to mean "not of the blood of Christ." Do you see my point?
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:12 PM
Quote
"Born of God", if through covenantal succession, could be twisted by extension to mean "born unto salvation because of a covenant made with their ancestors." "Not of blood" could be wrongly thought to mean "not of the blood of Christ." Do you see my point?
No, honestly I don't see your point. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> All I know is what the Bible says....!! Scripture is my source of truth, not some fabricated idea of a man which isn't based upon Scripture. I EXEGETED the passage for you to show you what it DOES teach. Anything that contradicts the truth that is revealed in that passage is obviously untruth. It's really that simple. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Now, if you care to disagree with my EXEGESIS of the passage, you are certainly welcome to do so and I would love to see your exegesis of it. Feel free to use the Greek if so desired as many here are conversant in the original languages and in exegesis, hermeneutics, and other such goodie things. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:58 PM
Pilgrim,

You have completely misjudged me and/or misunderstood what I wrote. Please go back and check the record. You probably answer many, many replies to your postings and sometimes get confused as to who said what.

You need to direct your animosity to the author of the article. He claims the doctrine came from John Calvin and was later refined by Hodge and Schenck.

For your information, I never allow any source outside Scripture for the purpose of discussing doctrine. I only use legitimate hermeneutics and exegesis as established by the ICBI in 1979. I suggest you read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Article II in this regard.

Yours in Christ,
George Fitt
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:56 PM
Quote
You need to direct your animosity to the author of the article. He claims the doctrine came from John Calvin and was later refined by Hodge and Schenck.
"Animosity"? surely you jest. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> If you are in agreement with my exegesis, then it is my error in thinking you did not. And if that is the case, then I apologize. If, however, you do disagree with my exegesis of John 1:12, 13, then I again invite you to give your own exegesis of the passage and how it does not bear upon the view called, "covenantal succession".

Quote
For your information, I never allow any source outside Scripture for the purpose of discussing doctrine.
Well, for your information and further consideration, we DO allow and even encourage the use of extra-biblical information when discussing doctrine here. In fact, we would be acting against Scripture if we did not do so. No one is without error, thus considering what others, particularly those who were used mightily by the Spirit of God in the development of the Church and its theology is a necessity if one is to guard against heresy. The great evangelical Creeds, e.g., Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedon and the Confessions that flowed out of the Protestant Reformation, e.g., Westminster, Belgic, 39 Articles, Savoy, London, Canons of Dort, et al, are all of great value as both guides and guards against heresy.

We here believe that the Scriptures are the "sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice." But we surely cannot discount the indwelling of the Spirit in the minds and hearts of true believers who hold the truth of the Scriptures. Since the truth was delivered to the "saints", it is our responsibility and desire to come to a unity of that truth.

Perhaps you would do well to read a relevant article written by Dr. Keith Mathison here: A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of "Solo Scriptura". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:03 PM
Pilgrim,
I read the entire document you provided and found the word "faith" only once. "Faith was reduced to little more than assent to the truthfulness of certain biblical propositions."
Your faith is in the doctrine of John Calvin. My faith is in the inspired Word of God and in the in-dwelling Holy Spirit.
Your faith is "reckless faith", because you do not know for certain whether or not John Calvin ever received the Holy Spirit of God. For without the Holy Spirit, "A natural man does not understand the things of God, nor can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned."
Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets who come to you dressed in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:15,16 "Therefore by their fruits you will know them." Matthew 7:20
One way to determine whether or not John Calvin was a false prophet dressed in sheep's clothing, or a true prophet of God would be to examine his fruits.
Would you agree?
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:32 PM
Quote
Your faith is in the doctrine of John Calvin. My faith is in the inspired Word of God and in the in-dwelling Holy Spirit.
Where, pray tell, do you get the audacity to make such a fallacious statement as this? You are on thin ice.

Quote
Your faith is "reckless faith", because you do not know for certain whether or not John Calvin ever received the Holy Spirit of God.
Another arrogant and presumptuous statement on your part. To be sure, I know far more about the life of John Calvin than I do yours, and from his doctrine and life, I am very much assured that John Calvin was indwelt by the Spirit of God. I have no such confidence about you, however.

Quote
One way to determine whether or not John Calvin was a false prophet dressed in sheep's clothing, or a true prophet of God would be to examine his fruits.
Would you agree?
I would agree, yes. As I stated above, I am more than superficially familiar with the writings of John Calvin, who was a sinner saved by grace, no less than myself. From all that I have read of the man, there can be no doubt that he is singing praises to Christ at this very moment. Would you be so bold as to charge that John Calvin is now in hell? If so, it might be interesting to hear why you are so certain that John Calvin was a "false teacher" and reprobate.

Lastly, your assessment of the article I recommended to you is also fallacious. I know the author personally, and he holds to the biblical definition of saving faith; i.e., "Fiducia", the whole being of man is involved, not simply "Assensus", which was promoted by Robert Sandeman. (cf. "Sandemanianism", Charles Finney, et al).

1 Corinthians 10:12 (ASV) Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.


In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:36 PM
Pilgrim,

"Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern" by Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr. copyright 1994, Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL on page 202 states, "Of course, the Catholic Church is by no means the only religious body guilty of atrocities. Martin Luther consented to the deaths of thousands in the Peasants' Revolt in sixteenth-century Germany. Many leading Reformers joined the Catholics in calling for the deaths of the Anabaptists. John Calvin sanctioned the burning of Michael Servetus, an arch-heretic who was condemned by both Catholics and Calvinists for his anti-trinitarianism. Oliver Cromwell's Puritan armies treated Irish Catholics with appalling ruthlessness. Cromwell himself signed the death warrant when Charles I was executed. The Puritans in colonial Massachusetts executed four Quakers before making heresy a capital offense were repealed."

Do you accept this testimony by Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr. as evidences of bad fruit by all these men, including John Calvin?
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:23 PM
Quote
1saved quipped:
Do you accept this testimony by Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr. as evidences of bad fruit by all these men, including John Calvin?
1saved, we got your number! We KNEW you were going to bring up the burning of Servetus in your next reply. I will not dispute the historical facts, even though they are not found in Scripture. But although Calvin was far from perfect, his part in Servetus' execution can hardly be called "bad fruit". Further, your previous comments went considerably further than simply questioning one incident in regard to John Calvin and calling it "bad fruit". . . in truth, you questioned his salvation, an unwarranted charge by biblical standards. Your judgmentalism is indefensible.

If you are interested in the historical FACTS concerning Calvin and the execution of Michael Servetus, I would encourage you to read the following: Was Geneva A Theocracy?, by Dr. Michael Horton.

[color:"blue"]Confidence is simply that quiet, assured feeling you have before you fall flat on your face. -- Dr. L. Binder[/color]


Edited: Corrected the above link.

In His Grace,
Posted By: MHeath Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:39 PM
Hey Pilgrim <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thank you for the definition of "fiducia!" That is another word I didn't know.. lol. Also, that link does not work. I did a search for it, but when I found it, every single solitary "A" is highlighted! LOL. I just can't get past it. Anyway.. that's it! Could you provide another link to it? Maybe it will work <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/thanks.gif" alt="" />

Michele
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:46 PM
Pilgrim,

I have read the document "Was Geneva a Theocracy?" by Dr. Michael Horton. I have observed the following:

1) Dr. Horton is the vice-chairman of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and therefore has impeccable credentials. Dr. John MacArthur is president of The Master's College and Seminary and his credentials are equally impeccable. Do you agree?

2) Dr. Horton wrote this document in 1992 and Dr. MacArthur wrote his book in 1994. I have no knowledge of whether or not Dr. MacArthur knew of the Dr. Horton document, but it is possible he did. It is certain that Dr. Horton did not know of the MacArthur book, since it wasn't written until 2 years after his document. Do you agree?

3) If Dr. MacArthur was aware of Dr. Horton's paper, I can only assume he would take Dr. Horton's testimony into consideration before saying Calvin committed atrocities by sanctioning the burning of Servetes. Do you agree?

4) Both Dr. Horton and Dr. MacArthur are Calvinists. I could have presented testimony from Arminians and Wesleyans as to the character of John Calvin, however, you would have dismissed their testimony as biased. Would you agree that the testimony of Dr. MacArthur is unbiased toward John Calvin?

5) The best way to resolve this conflicting testimony is to ask both Dr. MacArthur and Dr. Horton to give further input, since they wrote their testimony and are fully aware of the sources they used. Do you agree?

Yours in Christ,
George Fitt
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:47 PM
Michele,

Thanks for pointing out the bad link. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/stupidme.gif" alt="" /> It has been corrected in the previous post and here it is again just for you! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Was Geneva a Theocracy?, by Dr. Michael Horton.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 11:02 PM
1saved,

There isn't much in your several questions that I can agree with. But I do agree that, 1) Both Horton and MacArthur are notable men and are Calvinists.

I can't answer why MacArthur wrote what he did and I'm not privy to the context from which you took the quote which he wrote. What I do know is the historical record; the FACTS of what was going on in Geneva at the time that Calvin was pastoring there according to the writings of reliable historians. What Horton wrote is historically accurate according to what I have also read. Now, if one wants to embellish the historical record with a biased opinion of what Calvin's role was in the trial, conviction and execution of Servetus, there isn't much I can do except point out the FACTS.

The FACT is, Calvin had no power and not much more influence on the government or courts in Geneva during his stay there at the time Servetus was brought to trial. It was the established law in Geneva as it was in other provinces that blasphemy and serious heresy were capital crimes and punishable by death. John Calvin didn't write the laws. John Calvin wasn't appointed a Judge in the court. John Calvin wasn't even part of the legislative government. How anyone can accuse him of the "murder" of Michael Servetus is beyond me.

Now, if you have some salient historical records which you can produce to show that John Calvin was directly involved in Servetus' execution or that he had significant influence in his death, I would love to see it. Otherwise, anything contrary I consider to be slanderous and prejudicial against the man. Again.... John Calvin was a sinner. He was more aware of that fact than anyone. He was not therefore perfect and he erred both in doctrine life. But what he was not guilty of was the crime/sin of murder.

Lastly, and I want to challenge you once again on your original statement concerning John Calvin, i.e., that in your estimation, the man did not exhibit "fruit of the Spirit" and is therefore to be considered a reprobate and hardly a source of truth. Either defend your statement or recant it.

In His Grace,
Posted By: MHeath Re: Covenantal Succession - Wed Jan 28, 2004 11:57 PM
Pilgrim,

Muchos Gracias, merci beaucoup etc etc. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I will read it as soon as I can.

You know, I have been looking and looking for something that Spurgeon said, but I just cannot find it.. so you all will have to suffer with my own little dopey interpretation for now lol.

For a long time, I thought that anyone that didn't hold 100% to what I thought was true was a heretic. I remember when I read Luther's 95 (or was it 96?)theses, I called him a heretic, and wondered how in the world he became so very famous! Well.. I have since changed my attitude (obviously) and I came across something that spurgeon said about him. It made sense, and I had to reassess my thinking. I was also much more softened in some areas! But he said that while Martin Luther was not correct in a lot of his doctrine, he was so wrapped up in, enamoured with, and happy about the fact that we are saved by grace, through faith. That it was him who was the beginner of these things..the breakaway from the Roman Catholic church.

I know I made absolute mincemeat out of what he said! I am sure I will find it.. it may just take awhile lol. I have a friend too, who thinks everyone is a heretic. Everyone but her that is. It's just a tad scary. She has also never heard of the process of sanctification. I thought that was strange. She is the one who told me of Calvin and how he condemned a man to death, and told them to get the greenest wood possible so that he would die a horrible death. She said that she could never follow a man like that. That he did not have the holy spirit.

After awhile, I found some writings on this. And read for myself that it was not so. So, I thought, "okay, here is this gal, who is my friend, who does not put herself under the authority of any, has lied over and over, slandered people I know, and has given me this information about John Calvin. Who should I believe??" Well.. duh. lol.

So what Pilgrim wrote sort of reminded me of all that. What I am wondering though, are you (saved1.. I am pretty sure!) trying to attack Calvins character and question his salvation in order to prove a point? Like that covenantal succession is true? Or what?

Michele
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:56 AM
Michele,

Yes, I'm trying to make a point.

No, I have not slandered John Calvin as Pilgrim would have you believe.

You said here that a friend of yours said something negative about John Calvin. By reporting what your friend said, you didn't slander Calvin, if anyone slandered Calvin, your friend did. Right?

Well, it's the same situation. I reported what Dr. MacArthur said about Calvin. If anyone slandered Calvin, it was Dr. MacArthur, not me.

Pilgrim has already admitted that Dr. MacArthur is a reliable, knowledgeable Christian and a respected follower of John Calvin, who wouldn't say anything bad about Calvin unless he thought it were true.

The question now becomes is it true or is it not true? One man says it is and one man says it isn't and each are equally respected Bible teachers. How can anyone know?

I say ask them, but Pilgrim doesn't want to ask them. Is he afraid of what they might say?
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:16 AM
Quote
Pilgrim has already admitted that Dr. MacArthur is a reliable, knowledgeable Christian and a respected follower of John Calvin, who wouldn't say anything bad about Calvin unless he thought it were true.
You are having a problem with understanding the English language, perhaps? I never said any such thing. What I said was:

But I do agree that, 1) Both Horton and MacArthur are notable men and are Calvinists.


Where you got that MacArthur or even Horton for that matter, is a "respected follower of John Calvin", is simply amazing. [Linked Image] The FACT is that MacArthur is hardly a follower of John Calvin; he's a Reformed Baptist who also holds to "Progressive Dispensationalism"; hardly what Calvin believed and taught. And there are myriad other differences between the two men.

What I also know is that you have hijacked this thread to promote your own agenda. Yes, I will take partially responsibility for allowing you to do that. But at this point it will cease. If you care to further your fallacious accusations of John Calvin and/or the doctrines of sovereign grace, please start a new thread. Any further remarks about this off-topic discussion here will be deleted. [Linked Image]

In His Grace,
Posted By: MHeath Re: Covenantal Succession - Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:21 AM
My first question is: what point are you trying to make?

Because you alluded to it in an earlier post, it sounds to me like you are trying to prove that John Calvin was not born again. Unless you believe that we don't receive the Holy Spirit until AFTER we are born again. I am confused about where this is going. John MacArthur said "Calvin consented." I suppose that is the thing up for dispute?

Either way, I am not sure what this has to do with covenantal succession. And I suppose it's up to you on which history you believe concerning John Calvin.

and as far as Pilgrim goes.. I don't think he's afraid of anything that either of the two men you suggested would say.

Michele
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:34 AM
Come back Ron !

Joe comes across as a bit of a "bully" at times , but thats the "cop" in him <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I come across as bit "hard" at times, but thats the "Outlaw biker" in me <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

All folk here have these type of characteristics and it helps to have "broard shoulders" when our thoughts and ideas are put out to the world for all to see and challenge.

Chin up Ron ! We love ya man <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Covenantal Succession - Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:23 PM
Michele,

If I tell you my point now, you will not receive all the information leading up to the point. Sometimes the journey is more rewarding than the final destination.

This discussion Pilgrim and I are having has nothing to do with covenantal succession. From the beginning, we have both agreed covenantal succession is false doctrine.

You are right when you say it is up to each person to determine whether the testimony of Dr. Horton or the testimony of Dr. MacArthur is most believable.

I don't know Pilgrim's reason for not agreeing with me that the best way to help resolve the conflicting testimonies of Drs. Horton and MacArthur is to ask them to elaborate upon their written testimony, because he gave me no reason.

Common sense tells me what I said is true and a long history of legal precedence testifies it's true, but you'd have to ask Pilgrim why he doesn't agree; just as we would have to ask Dr. Horton and Dr. MacArthur to speak for themselves regarding what each man wrote.

The issue is not, "Would they reply?"; the issue is, "Should we ask?". Scripture says, "Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you."
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Covenantal Succession - Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:24 PM
Quote
I don't know Pilgrim's reason for not agreeing with me that the best way to help resolve the conflicting testimonies of Drs. Horton and MacArthur is to ask them to elaborate upon their written testimony, because he gave me no reason.
Are you on medication of some kind? Do you suffer from Alzheimer's disease? Are you intellectually challenged? Or, perhaps you can offer some valid reason why you have been unable to retain in your memory what I have already given as a reason; more than once in fact. I will give it to you only one more time.... Dr. Horton's article is based upon HISTORICAL RECORD! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> John Calvin had no authority whatsoever in the city of Geneva either in government or in the judiciary. Additionally, his influence was restricted, for the most part, to the ecclesiastical realm. He was thrown out of Geneva at an earlier time due to his unpopularity among the "powers that be". Therefore, there is simply no possibility that Calvin could have anything to do with Servetus' execution, which was prescribed by law. If Calvin were guilty of murder, then he would have been arrested and executed himself. So, once again I challenge YOU, not Horton not MacArthur, but YOU who had posted accusations against the man long deceased who is unable to give a defense himself, to produce HISTORICAL RECORDS which would support your fallacious and unbiblical judgments against the man. If you can't do that, then I would recommend that you keep silent. [Linked Image]

I also told you that I would delete any further posts you made in this particular thread concerning this off-topic obsession of yours. One has already been deleted. This one to which I am replying I am not going to delete because it serves to give you public notice that if you insist on hijacking threads and/or continue to make unsubstantiated charges against people, you will be banned from this Board. As it has been said to you before, if you are desirous to discuss Calvin's role in the death of Servetus, start a new thread. I really don't know how to make it any plainer than that. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,
Posted By: Jason1646 Re: Covenantal Succession - Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:16 PM
Greetings Eleanor,

I read Rayburn's article a while back, and though I believe that there are some good points to be extracted from it, I also think that it suffers from overextension as he appeals to far too many texts that I don't see as relevant to the point he wants to make.

I do believe that Scripture presents us with a history of God's covenant being established along generational lines in organic fasion (albeit, not head for head), and that faithful covenant nurture is the means ordained alongside of that end.

The pragmatic outworking of such a theology means that when I raise my children faithfully according to the wisdom, love, and discipline of God's Word, that I believe they will respond in expanding levels of obedience commensurate with their capacity to do so. The promise that I believe is beautifully outlined in Psalm 103:17-18:

17 But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting On those who fear Him, And His righteousness to children's children, 18 To such as keep His covenant, And to those who remember His commandments to do them.

Sincerely in Christ,

~Jason
Posted By: MHeath Re: Covenantal Succession - Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:27 PM
Okay George, (sorry.. I wrote Greg before!)

Duly noted. I suppose answering your private message is not necessary then <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I still do not understand at all what your point is, so I would really suggest that if you want to discuss this, start another thread and lets discuss it.

Pilgrim has more than answered your questions though. Unless there is yet another point you are trying to make. Even though you say one thing, it is responded to, and you turn around and say you didn't say that. Maybe you could slooooowwwlly read the responses Pilgrim wrote? Anyway, I'm not trying to be mean or anything, and i don't think anyone else is either. But you brought this stuff up in a thread that has nothing to do with your point (whatever that is.) Also, you have come to a discussion board that is reformed/calvinist, and try to say that our whole system of theology is heresy. You have to realize you will not be welcomed with open arms.. especially since you won't respond with coherent questions/answers.

If this is that important to you, start another thread, and let this discussion continue okay?

Michele
Posted By: Tom Re: Covenantal Succession - Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:34 PM
In my Church library we have a tape series on the history of the Church by a Church historian. At the moment I can't remember this historian’s name, but I do know that he is Arminian in his theology.
I mention this because even though he doesn't agree with Calvin about theology, he never the less said that Calvin got a bad rap. Much of what he said confirms what Dr. Horton said on the subject.

I also must agree with Pilgrim whole heartedly about Calvin being a sinner like anyone of us. Even if it could be proved that Calvin was responsible for the death of Servatus, the only thing that would prove is that he did sin.
Let me ask you this, do you believe that King David is in heaven today?
If you answer "no" you are definitely in the minority because by far the majority of Arminian and Calvinist theologians would answer "yes".
Why is that important? It is important because if you study the life of King David, you will notice that during his life he was a murderer an adulterer, etc...

I hope you get my point.

Tom
Posted By: fredman Re: Covenantal Succession - Thu Jan 29, 2004 6:23 PM
I am not absolutely sure why John Mac is being involked in this discussion, but seeing that I personally work for the guy here at his radio ministry, I just wanted to comment upon this statement from his book.
The section is from an appendix on the changing nature of Roman Catholicism. John is establishing how, through out all of church history, there is a history of persecution. I would add, that the persecution of dissenting "heretics" was due to more of a state/church monstrosity of the time, but that is neither here nor there. Suffice it to say, John is simply establishing that even though Protestant Christians, individuals we hold up as heroes of the faith, and rightly so, had their share of doing bad things in the name of Christianity. However, John goes on to say that the persecution carried out by Protestants "pale in comparison to the horrifying waves of tyranny and inhumanity carried out in the name of Roman Catholicism." John is only setting up an historical contrast.
Now, where I am a bit lost is with why John MacArthur mentioning John Calvin sanctioning Servetus's death is relevant. Are you saying, George, that John is implying that Calvin was not a Christian? Or that he has nothing worthy of his rightful honor as a tremendous contributor to Christianity and Christian thought? That would be a difficult point to establish seeing that Dr. MacArthur gave a series of lectures on the importance of preaching at the seminary chapel a few years ago, and he used John Calvin as his primary model and example of how we should preach.

Granted, John is not a Calvinist in the sense that Pilgrim mentioned, but Calvin is one of John's spiritual heroes and he would never tell anyone not to read Calvin just because Calvin partook in the death of Servetus.

By the way, not to excuse Calvin; Servetus's death was a horrific crime, but if you know anything about Servetus and his angry, stalker like personality, especially toward Calvin, he sort of had it coming.

Fred
Posted By: Henry Re: Covenantal Succession - Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:13 PM
Just to hijack this thread one step further...

Pilgrim mentioned that John MacArthur was a Progressive Dispensationalist, in contrast to Calvin. I've got "Institutes" on my computer, so I'll have to look up what Calvin's eschatology was like, but where could I find some more info on John MacArthur's in regards to this? I know he's a pre-tribber, but what past this? ("Progessive Dispensatinoalist" can mean a lot of things.)

Thanks!
Posted By: MHeath Re: Covenantal Succession - Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:25 PM
Alrighty.. i hope I am not beating a dead horse here lol, but I have been thinking on this thread a lot. The original point to this thread anyway. But I wanted to clear something up.

I agree that my children are not saved until they have been drawn by God and been born again. I don't "presume" they are elect, or christians or whateve terminology. I have heard someone say that God does not hear the prayers of the unsaved either, but I am not sure I agree with that 100%. There were some times in my life before I was saved that God miraculously "helped" me.

Anyway, the thing I am wondering about is how I treat my children. I do not presume them saved or elect, and I have told them about God, and Jesus, and hell etc. But I also pray with each one of them every night. I teach them scriptures and we are even starting (slowly lol) the Small Children's catechism. I tell them at night if they tell me that they are afraid, that they can pray to God and ask Him to help them to not be afraid.

Proverbs tells us to train up a child in the way he should go,and when he is old he will not depart from it. So.. I I am trying to do my part, but in praying with them, and having them pray, and encouraging prayer on their own, am I treating them like a Christian?

It's my strongest prayer that my children and my husband are saved. However, I don't treat my husband like he's saved. Before, since the bible said to "let them go and ask their husbands at home' I would ask him, but it always caused a disagreement, or I would know he had no idea what I was talking about! So I don't do that anymore!

But with my children, I guess I am wondering if I do treat them like they are christians, and is this wrong?

Michele
Posted By: John_C Great question - Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:27 PM
Quote
But with my children, I guess I am wondering if I do treat them like they are christians, and is this wrong?

Michele, that is a great question. Even may be the most pertinent one of the debate.

The way you describe your treatment of your children is the perfect example of their being in the covenant. They are being immersed with the things of God, so therefore, they are receiving God's blessing via you. Although they are in the covenant, we cannot presume that they are regenerate. Keep on keepin' on with their instructions in the things of God.

I see the major problem with covenant succession is that the proponents are equalling belonging to the covenant as an act of regeneration (maybe in the future). Then you get into the covenant faithfulness mire. We are saved by grace through faith (and repentance); it is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is not by any outward work by man.
© The Highway